Food for thought.

[quatona]

As a Christian, when I perceive evil I would hope the Holy Spirit would prompt me on what to do. I can't speak for atheists or theists on how they would handle a situation of apparent evil, some may do nothing and think someone else will do something.

So you hope the Holy Spirit infringes on Christians´ "free will" but not on everybody else´s?

 

[Chriliman]

What is this talk of criteria? Don't be moving the goalposts on me. You can either consciously control what you believe or you cannot. Which is it?

You can consciously reject a truth claim because it doesn't meet your criteria of acceptance. Your's or my criteria of acceptance has no affect on what is true.

Your criteria is that there must be hard evidence to support a truth claim. My criteria is that it must make sense and I expect the truth to be demonstrated to me personally because I can't possibly go outside my personal self to experience a demonstrated truth.

 

[Chriliman]

So you hope the Holy Spirit infringes on Christians´ "free will" but not on everybody else´s?

I can ignore the prompting of the Holy Spirit, but I'd hope that I wouldn't in a situation of witnessing an evil act.

 

[quatona]

I can ignore the prompting of the Holy Spirit, but I'd hope that I wouldn't in a situation of witnessing an evil act.

But you hope that a non-Christian will?
Or: You hope that the Holy Spirit doesn´t perform this "prompting" on non-Christians?

 

[quatona]

You can consciously reject a truth claim because it doesn't meet your criteria of acceptance.

The question, however, is: Can I consciously accept a truth claim even thought it doesn´t meet my criteria of acceptance? (Or, to keep to your preferred virtue: Would it be reasonable for anyone to accept a truth claim even though it doesn´t meet their criteria of acceptance? Or, to make it hit home even closer: Would it be reasonable for you to accept truth claims even though they don´t meet your criteria of acceptance?).

 

[HitchSlap]

You can consciously reject a truth claim because it doesn't meet your criteria of acceptance. Your's or my criteria of acceptance has no affect on what is true.

Your criteria is that there must be hard evidence to support a truth claim. My criteria is that it must make sense and I expect the truth to be demonstrated to me personally because I can't possibly go outside my personal self to experience a demonstrated truth.

Is "every time a bell rings, an angel gets it's wings," a truth claim?

 

[Received]

As a Christian, when I perceive evil I would hope the Holy Spirit would prompt me on what to do. I can't speak for atheists or theists on how they would handle a situation of apparent evil, some may do nothing and think someone else will do something.

Does the holy spirit enable a person to respond to evil in every situation or only in some?

 

[asherahSamaria]

It depends if you view this being as being inherently good or inherently bad. I view Him as being the eternal foundation of existence, therefore, all goodness is because of Him. This means it's good that I exist, but I have a finite free will which cannot be the same as God's infinite free will. In this disconnect between our wills is where the option for evil is created because God created me to have my own finite free will to do as I please.

Another way to think about it is that God has a will, but He only wants what is good. If a created being only wants what is bad, then God wants to destroy their will because it would be good to destroy a will that only wants what is bad. But to do this and not affect free will, God creates the option for the created being to choose good or bad and if the created being continues choosing bad then God continues destroying their will even for eternity because God is eternally good and only wants what is good. It pleases God to do this because the end result of bad will being eternally destroyed is God's perfect plan being fulfilled.

In the same sense, if a created being wants what is good then God will grant it because He wants the same thing. It also pleases God to do this because the end result of a created being choosing His will is God's perfect plan being fulfilled.

No - you misunderstand - this has nothing to do with good or evil.

An omniscient entity cannot have free will because it knows what is going to happen in the future - because it is omniscient it must by definition not be able to change the future because it knows what is going to happen therefore it does not have free will.

 

[anonymous person]

Not deliberately.

However, if you feel that beliefs can be deliberately chosen, you should be able to demonstrate that to yourself. Choose to believe that you were abducted by aliens last night. Can you do it?

Ahh...

Davian I think I get what you are driving at now...

I will start a new thread when I have time on this. It falls under epistemology.

 

[Chriliman]

Does the holy spirit enable a person to respond to evil in every situation or only in some?

In every situation. God has sovereignty over evil in every way.

 

[Davian]

You can consciously reject a truth claim because it doesn't meet your criteria of acceptance. Your's or my criteria of acceptance has no affect on what is true.

We are talking about beliefs, not reality.

Your criteria is that there must be hard evidence to support a truth claim.

That is not my position.

My criteria is that it must make sense and I expect the truth to be demonstrated to me personally because I can't possibly go outside my personal self to experience a demonstrated truth.

Then you agree that you cannot consciously control what you believe? You need to be convinced somehow?

 

[Chriliman]

No - you misunderstand - this has nothing to do with good or evil.

An omniscient entity cannot have free will because it knows what is going to happen in the future - because it is omniscient it must by definition not be able to change the future because it knows what is going to happen therefore it does not have free will.

When Jesus was on earth he had free will. He only chose what was good which is why he's perfect and we're not.

 

[Chriliman]

We are talking about beliefs, not reality.

That is not my position.

Then you agree that you cannot consciously control what you believe? You need to be convinced somehow?

I would believe something if it made sense, but I won't know something unless there's convincing evidence. So I suggest we can't consciously choose what we know.

 

[Davian]

I would believe something if it made sense, but I won't know something unless there's convincing evidence. So I suggest we can't consciously choose what we know.

Not what you know, but what you believe. Again: you agree that you cannot consciously control what you believe? You need to be convinced somehow?

 

[Davian]

Does the holy spirit enable a person to respond to evil in every situation or only in some?

It would depend on what you mean by "evil". From what I gather, even the concept of genocide can be made to fit into the "good" category in the mind of the experienced apologist.

 

[Chriliman]

Not what you know, but what you believe. Again: you agree that you cannot consciously control what you believe? You need to be convinced somehow?

But I can control what I believe by asking questions. We all could be currently believing a lie and not know it unless we consciously decide to question and get to the truth. The act of questioning when done honestly is the temporary voluntary suspension of our previously held belief to allow new information to influence our beliefs. If your not willing to allow new information to influence your beliefs then you're not being open minded. You might even start to think you can't consciously control what you believe when in fact you can by voluntarily suspending your previously held belief and ask questions to allow new information to influence your beliefs.

 

[Davian]

But I can control what I believe by asking questions. We all could be currently believing a lie and not know it unless we consciously decide to question and get to the truth. The act of questioning when done honestly is the temporary voluntary suspension of our previously held belief to allow new information to influence our beliefs. If your not willing to allow new information to influence your beliefs then you're not being open minded. You might even start to think you can't consciously control what you believe when in fact you can by voluntarily suspending your previously held belief and ask questions to allow new information to influence your beliefs.

I am not asking about what influences your beliefs. Is this question awkward for you? Again: you agree that you cannot consciously control what you believe? You need to be convinced somehow?

 

[Chriliman]

I am not asking about what influences your beliefs. Is this question awkward for you? Again: you agree that you cannot consciously control what you believe? You need to be convinced somehow?

Can you voluntarily allow new information to influence your beliefs? If so then you have voluntary control over your beliefs. You could just stick your head in the sand and not let anything influence your beliefs or you can voluntarily pull your head out and let life influence your beliefs.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But I can control what I believe by asking questions.

No...you can't.

You've asked plenty of questions on these threads...you've gotten plenty of truthful answers too. The problem is that you dismiss any answers (even truthful ones) that don't support what you already believe. That's the definition of closed-minded.

Simply asking questions doesn't give you control over your beliefs...nor does it make you open-minded.

 

[Davian]

Can you voluntarily allow new information to influence your beliefs? If so then you have voluntary control over your beliefs. You could just stick your head in the sand and not let anything influence your beliefs or you can voluntarily pull your head out and let life influence your beliefs.

I said nothing about new information. This is about consciously deciding to change what you believe in the absence of new information. Can you do it or not?