|
|
#261
05-27-2005, 06:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: God is Love
It seems kind of obvious. Read the Book of James, it won't take 15 minutes. Conversion involves rebirth, change of mind and life, committment to the Lord, crucifixion of the self, becoming the slave of Christ, and much more. This is what's involved when you exercise genuine faith. It isn't that God requires works for salvation, but that genuine faith will inevitably result in a change of heart, attitude and life, and if no works appear in one's life, it becomes legitimate to question the genuiness of the profession of faith.
|
|
#262
05-27-2005, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Murder and free will
[ QUOTE ]
Fortunately for me, I am not in a minority, otherwise my life would be in great danger and so would be the lives of many others. [/ QUOTE ] How do you know if you're in the minority or not? Additionally, you make an assumption that: If one does not agree with the majority view, then one's life is in danger. Can you prove this? [ QUOTE ] Not all people value the same things I value. I accept that. As long as we can co-exist without violence, I cannot complain that your views are different from mine. [/ QUOTE ] Why does coexisting without violence be necessary for you not to complain? How are you all of a sudden justified in complaining about coexisting without violence? Is this a judgement that you make upon others? If so, then you refute yourself and imply that there is a universal qualification (namely a coexistance without violence) that makes something just or injust. If not then even if you complain, so what? You're supposed to coexist without violence right? [ QUOTE ] No. I am unable to make you feel the same as I feel. However, if your system of values is such that I have to die, we will inevitably reach violent disagreement. Either your system will be changed, or mine. Or one of us will die. [/ QUOTE ] Why would it necessarily reach a violent disagreement? It seems like you could kill yourself and solve the problem. No more disagreement. **note** I am not asking you to kill yourself, merely giving an alternative possibility to something you claim is "necesary" [ QUOTE ] I will need a very good argument for this. I do not deny that it would be possible to convince me but in this case it would be very difficult [/ QUOTE ] The point of my arguement was that your logic does not necessarily lead to your conclusion. You claim that humans are the most complex thing you know and killing them reduces the complexity to your knowledge (which, to your opinion is a bad thing). I point out that it's merely your knowledge, so if someone could see that killing humans increases the complexity of their observation, then they would be justified in killing. Is that correct? [ QUOTE ] No, I said that in my view killing is wrong. I made no universal statements. If it is possible to persuade me that killing is not wrong that would also remove these extremely unpleasant emotions, my views would be changed. [/ QUOTE ] I was merely pointing out that your emotions (being as they are illogical) do not provide any grounds upon which you can say "killing is wrong." But you use the statement "killing is wrong" to support your arguement against "violence." If your emotions are irrational, why should other people accept them as support against violence? What gives your emotions any more validity than others? If I get weird kicks out of killing people, are my actions justified by my emotions? [ QUOTE ] I have a pretty convincing (at least to me) evidence that on the subject of killings, many people agree with me. This evidence is that killing humans is illegal most everywhere in the world. If most people disagreed, these laws prohibiting killing of humans would be changed. I cannot say for sure that this will not change in the future. I cannot even say for sure that my own views will not change in the future. [/ QUOTE ] More unjustified assumptions: 1)Killing humans is illegal most everywhere in the world Can you prove this? 2)If most people disagreed with a law, it would be changed. Can you prove this? As to the knowledge of "popular opinion" I've presented my arguements against your ability to establish "popular" opinion in a post you have not responded to yet. One point I would like to see addressed specifically is: How can you establish "what is popular opinion is 'good' or 'right'"? Do you have to resort to popular opinion to establish that statement? If yes, what if popular opinion changes on that issue? If no, then why don't you use the proof for establishing "what is popular opinion is 'good' or 'right' " to prove everything else? If no, what if popular opinion decides that the original assumption you used to prove "what popular opinion decides is 'right' or 'good' " is wrong?
|
|
#263
05-27-2005, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Murder and free will
[ QUOTE ]
Is it safe to sum up your arguments in this thread into, "we can't really know anything but I choose to believe the Bible." [/ QUOTE ] Not exactly, but close. I would sum it up as: We cannot know anything without presupposing the entire Bible. All other mechanisms for knowledge eventually degrade into irrational skepticism (which is self refuting).
|
|
#264
05-27-2005, 06:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Murder and free will
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Your summary is very accurate. It was bad to go to war with Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, all of the alternatives were worse. [/ QUOTE ] So you've agreed with me that you are implying that it was "bad" to go to war with Nazi Germany, but the alternatives were "worse". The issues I raise previously about how one judges "bad" or "good" or "worse" come into play. If you answer in the same way as you have justice, there is no ground upon which you can judge something as "bad" or "worse" merely history that happened and nothing more. [/ QUOTE ] There is my personal definition of right and wrong. I can use it to determine that I cannot coexist with nazis. Any scenario in which nazis are able to force their values on the world result in my destruction. However, fighting the Nazis is a terrible option as well, because many people die as a result. As a result, I am stuck between very unpleasant choices. But I don't take it for granted that my choices need always be pleasant. I can say which choice is better by the projected consequences that I like most, that is all. [ QUOTE ] The problem with nazi version of justice is that the rest of the world disagreed. [/ QUOTE ] Why is this a problem? If the rest of the world disagrees with you and says that there is a God should you agree with them? Additionally you need to establish that the rest of the world disagreed at all. You also need to establish that the rest of the world for all time will disagree. [/ QUOTE ] If the rest of the world forces me to believe in god with the threat of death, I will be forced to at least appear and behave as though I believed in god, or die. As long as the disagreement is not violent, everyone is entitled to his own opinion. The rest of the world disagreed with the nazis because otherwise there would be no great war. I cannot establish that in the future people will disagree with nazis as well. As far as I can tell from the current trends, it is unlikely that many people will agree with nazis for a foreseeable future. I hope, I can contribute to the effort of persuasion that will reduce the number of people who have value system similar to nazis. [ QUOTE ] Our definitions of right and wrong are defined by popular agreement. [/ QUOTE ] Popular opinion again. What if for Nazi Germany it was popular to kill Jews. Thus it would be right for them correct? Let me remind you that you need to establish that it was in fact "popular opinion" instead of making claims. [/ QUOTE ] I was not clear here. By our, I meant the society's definition. It was popular in Nazi Germany to kill jews. And they did. It would not be right for me, because I do not share their values. If they managed to persuade me, my values would be changed. If they forced me, I would face a terrible choice again. By popular opinion I mean the system of laws that the majority of the population obeys. In a democracy, that system of laws is quite close to popular opinion, otherwise the laws get changed. I cannot say what is right or wrong for others, however, it is possible that someone's value system would involve killing me, and I would resist that violently. [ QUOTE ] Some mechanisms for protecting minority opinion is included, however, whenever a law is passed prohibiting something, it is assumed that popular opinion deems that something "wrong". In our system of justice, everything not deemed "wrong" is presumed "right" until there is a strong disagreement resulting in a change. On many issues, there is no popular agreement, and sometimes people simply agree to let individuals define what is right or wrong on these issues. You are free to disagree with popular opinion on what is right and what is wrong but be warned. The popular opinion is often enforced by violence or threat of violence. [/ QUOTE ] But you've just implied that violence was "bad." Why can you now enforce "popular opinion" upon others through violence? [/ QUOTE ] I cannot enforce popular opinion, I believe that it is wrong to apply violence to enforce popular opinion. However, I am in a very small minority, and I have to accept that. I am simply observing, that most people appear to believe that it is not wrong to enforce popular opinion through violence. I have to find a way to live with that. [ QUOTE ] For example, 300 years ago, the popular opinion shared by many people who had theology similar to yours was that it is right for people to own other people with skin of different color. [/ QUOTE ] Great random slander. Please prove it. Show that it was "popular." Define "similar" and demonstrate that people had "similar" theology to mine. Even if what you say is true, your statements lend nothing to your arguement. [/ QUOTE ] It was the law of the land. Most people tolerated this law and did not try to change or disobey this law. How old is your theology? Maybe it is very new, and the people who lived 300 years ago did not know about it. However, in you view, were some of them the chosen ones who were saved? If yes, then this is the sense of similar that I meant. These people followed a theology that got them saved, in your view. You follow a theology that gets you saved, in your view. Therefore your theologies are similar. <snip> So basically you're saying that "right" and "wrong" are defined by popular opinion and thus can change. Is that a popular opinion? If so, isn't there a possibility that it will change and thus become "wrong" in the future? [/ QUOTE ] The "right" and "wrong" in society is defined by popular opinion, yes. You can disagree with what society considers right. So can I. Yes, there is a possibility that in the future what is right and wrong for society will not be defined by popular opinion. [ QUOTE ] All these questions of course are reliant upon you actually proving that it was indeed "popular opinion" Dictionary.com - a belief or sentiment shared by most people How can you determine with certainty that the belief is shared by most people? You have to inspect every person in the world, and while doing so, ensure that people's views don't change. Can you do this? [/ QUOTE ] Our society is different from Iranian society. The things that popular opinion deems "wrong" are documented as prohibitions in our laws. If these laws are popular, they are obeyed by majority. If these laws are not popular, they are changed, abolished, disobeyed, or unenforced. Laws are very complicated for a reason. They are the best compromise that most people can live with.
|
|
#265
05-27-2005, 07:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Murder and free will
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Is it safe to sum up your arguments in this thread into, "we can't really know anything but I choose to believe the Bible." [/ QUOTE ] Not exactly, but close. I would sum it up as: We cannot know anything without presupposing the entire Bible. All other mechanisms for knowledge eventually degrade into irrational skepticism (which is self refuting). [/ QUOTE ] So you would rather presuppose that the words written in a book represent the will of god rather than accept that the universe for the most part is unintelligible to us and that we make due with our limited human faculties, i.e. logic, language, etc?
|
|
#266
05-27-2005, 08:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Murder and free will
[ QUOTE ]
So you would rather presuppose that the words written in a book represent the will of god rather than accept that the universe for the most part is unintelligible to us and that we make due with our limited human faculties, i.e. logic, language, etc? [/ QUOTE ] What you describe is what I meant by "irrational skepticism." If you make the statement that "the universe is unintelligible" That is an intelligent statement about the universe, and thus is self-contradictory, it cannot logically stand. Now of course, you can deny logic, but this needs to be logically sound itself in order to stand "logic is false" means "logic is true" (now that you throw out the laws of logic). But if you say there is some possibility of knowledge, then it is necessary to presuppose the entire biblical worldview.
|
|
#267
05-27-2005, 09:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Murder and free will
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So you would rather presuppose that the words written in a book represent the will of god rather than accept that the universe for the most part is unintelligible to us and that we make due with our limited human faculties, i.e. logic, language, etc? [/ QUOTE ] What you describe is what I meant by "irrational skepticism." If you make the statement that "the universe is unintelligible" That is an intelligent statement about the universe, and thus is self-contradictory, it cannot logically stand. Now of course, you can deny logic, but this needs to be logically sound itself in order to stand "logic is false" means "logic is true" (now that you throw out the laws of logic). But if you say there is some possibility of knowledge, then it is necessary to presuppose the entire biblical worldview. [/ QUOTE ] What you say is not necessarily true. Logic does not need to be ultimate form of knowledge that you suppose that it must. I take a Kantian view and think that we cannot have ultimate knowledge about existence as a whole, but instead we use the human faculty of reason to make sense of the world as best we can. It is not contradictory to believe that humans use rationality to understand existence but that existence itself is not fully comprehendible by the human rational faculty. I do not presuppose that the universe is bound by logic -- it appears you do -- but I do think that human knowledge of the universe is bound by logic.
|
|
#270
05-28-2005, 12:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Murder and free will
[ QUOTE ]
Many of our observations seem to give us workable solutions to our problems. Even if what we observe is not true, it worked for us for thousands of years. We are getting better at it. [/ QUOTE ] How can you be getting better at making unjustified assumptions? Can you really define a "good" unjustified assumption and a "better" one? [/ QUOTE ] The assumption remains the same. That observations we make reflect the reality. I never changed my assumption. I am referring to our ability to make better observations. It is true that my assumption is unjustified. However, there is a way to prove that my assumption is wrong. If it is proven that my assumption is wrong, I will have to change my assumption. But your premise cannot be proven to be wrong. Once you accept it you are stuck with it, because the underlying logic prohibits you from looking at different assumptions. I think, my assumption gives me more freedom and offers me greater flexibility. [ QUOTE ] Because we need to survive. Because those that need to survive and know how to do that best will pass their desire to survive to their progeny. Because we know how to record past experiences and observations. [/ QUOTE ] So here you're making the assumptions that A) We need to survive can you prove this? [/ QUOTE ] Not formally. However I can try and make a case. Every one living on Earth came from a long line of survivers. It appears that in order to survive, a desire to survive proved to be useful. Therefore, most of us have inherited a strong desire to survive from our ancestors. This desire is not a learned logical construct. It is something we are born with. Even as babies we cry because we want our caregivers to tend to our survival needs. B) Those that need to survive and know how to do that best will pass their desire to survive to their progeny. Can you prove this? [/ QUOTE ] If a desire to survive is beneficial for survival, than those who have it will have an advantage over those who do not have it. There will be more people surviving among those who want to survive. According to my observations, a majority of people have desire to survive. Are your observations different? Do you know of anyone whose observations are different? C) we know how to record past experiences and observations. Can you prove this? [/ QUOTE ] Let us suppose that we do not know how to record past observations and experiences. That means that we also do not know how to record this conversation. But I was able to read this conversation multiple times. I was able to read it, because it was recorded. Therefore it follows that we do know how to record past observations and experiences. Incidentally, reading and writing is a technology. There was a time when people did not know how to read and write. The word of god would be unavailable to these people in the same form as it is available to you. [ QUOTE ] Nice. Do you know how to climb trees? Do you know if the fruit is good to eat? How are you going to find out? [/ QUOTE ] yes, no, God may or may not grant me that knowledge dependant upon His will. What is the point of these questions? All knowledge comes by the soveign grace of God. He plants it in my head completely dependant upon His timing. [/ QUOTE ] The point was that in order to obtain knowledge, one must try and do some observations. It is no use to ask god for knowledge. One must do some work. If you do not learn or experiment, god will not magically put knowledge in your head. Observe, formulate model, try to predict future observations, fail, change your model and observe some more. This is how knowledge is obtained. [ QUOTE ] you are right. If my core assumption is wrong, then our knowledge might be also wrong. Yet, we know and can do many more things now than we could in the past. I will hold on to my assumtion until it is shown not to work. [/ QUOTE ] How do you know that "you know more things than you could in the past" if all your knowledge is supposedly dependant upon an unjustified premise? You don't even know how much you knew in the past, let alone how much you know now. [/ QUOTE ] Until my premise have been shown wrong, I am keeping it. It worked so far, that is all I can require. [ QUOTE ] And even if it seems "workable" how does that necessarily translate to more knowledge? [/ QUOTE ] I am typing this message on a computer. Two hundred years ago no one knew a thing about computers. Now, most people do know something. Some know quite a bit. You know how to type on a computer, and many other things about computers. Where did this knowledge come from? It is an additional knowledge that was not available in the past. We did not lose any knowledge available in the past. Therefore, we have more knowledge now than we had in the past. [ QUOTE ] What new things do you know about god that Paul did not know? What new things do you know about the stars that Paul did not know? [/ QUOTE ] Since I do not know what Paul did know or didn't, I cannot possibly answer your question. [/ QUOTE ] But Paul wrote many things that he knew in the bible. If you read the bible and see the things that Paul wrote, can you not assume that Paul knew these things? Just give me an example of the thing that you definitely know about god, but think it is unlikely that Paul knew that. For example, did Paul know that all knowledge in your head is put their by god's direct intervention? I can pose the question (in a different wording) to you though: What certain knowledge about God do you have? What certain knowledge about the stars do you have? Do you even know if stars exist? [/ QUOTE ] I have no certain knowledge about god. I can look at the evening sky and see stars twinking there. I can look at Hubble telescope pictures and see some close ups. I can learn about spectral analysis, and read about our best guesses at what the stars are made of. Do you think that the computer you use exists?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
