How to choose between creation and evolution.

[SelfSim]

I'm sorry that you are unable to understand what I said.

I understand it .. The reasoning borders on the delusional!

 

[SelfSim]

Have a good day!

Yes .. I've noticed how you run away (or exclude others) whenever the going gets tough!
Is that also part of 'The Great Commission'?

 

[johneb]

"How to choose between creation and evolution."
How does one choose between the word of God and the teaching of the world?
I think it is a choice we all make at some point in our lives. God is gentle and asks us to follow him, if we choose to follow Jesus the question of creation vs evolution takes a back seat.

 

[SelfSim]

How does one choose between the word of God and the teaching of the world
...
I think it is a choice we all make
...
if we choose to follow Jesus ...

The freedom to choose went up in the puff of illogic exhibited in the last few posts ..

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think 'coherency' and 'free will' are related though(?)

I don't know what you mean - I meant free will being coherent as a concept.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In the context of the Bible, the actions of Judas was a fulfilled prophecy.
The literal interpretation of the Bible would suggest Judas was fated and his actions known before his time on Earth could only be the result of God being omnipotent.

Sure, if that's how the story goes. Nevertheless, if free will is subjective, i.e. the individual's subjective experience of making uncoerced and unconstrained choices according to his desires, then it is compatible with fatalism or determinism.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't know what you mean - I meant free will being coherent as a concept.

We're close to being in synch (I think) .. What you mean by 'free will' and 'being coherent' are both concepts to me.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We're close to being in synch (I think) .. What you mean by 'free will' and 'being coherent' are both concepts to me.

They're concepts to me too. Is that what you meant by them being related - that they're both concepts? like all other concepts?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

C'mon, sjastro ... you're smarter than that.

Act 1: God creates a stone.
Act 2: God sets His omnipotence aside.
Act 3: Paradox solved.

In fact, He doesn't even have to create the stone; all He has to do is set His omnipotence aside, and a four-year old can lift a stone (or toy or whatever), whereas God can't.

Easy peasy.

Oh, for goodness sake. That in no way solves the paradox:

1. God is omnipotent. God creates a stone. God can lift that stone.
2. God sets aside his omnipotence. Paradox ends here.
3. God is not omnipotent and cannot lift the stone, but that's irrelevant because the paradox is no longer in play.

Even a four year old in Sunday school could see that.

 

[SelfSim]

They're concepts to me too. Is that what you meant by them being related - that they're both concepts? like all other concepts?

Yes .. just as 'omnipotence' is .. (ie: a concept).
So I guess I didn't understand why you said

That doesn't follow if free will is subjective

.. just curious about why you might see it that way(?)
Surely all concepts are subjective?

 

[AV1611VET]

... but that's irrelevant because the paradox is no longer in play.

In other words, keep it a paradox, right?

You're not interested in getting it solved, just keeping it a paradox, I take it?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In other words, keep it a paradox, right?

You're not interested in getting it solved, just keeping it a paradox, I take it?

Well there's a surprise. You haven't addressed my argument, you've gone off on a tangent.

Furthermore, the tangent seems to indicate that you do not understand that, by definition, a paradox cannot be "solved".

 

[AV1611VET]

Furthermore, the tangent seems to indicate that you do not understand that, by definition, a paradox cannot be "solved".

Then what do you call it, when it has been rendered otiose?

My guess is: "mislabeled."

 

[Speedwell]

Then what do you call it, when it has been rendered otiose?

My guess is: "mislabeled."

No, call it evidence against Logical Realism.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, call it evidence against Logical Realism.

How 'bout we just call it "paradox resolution"?

We have seen three different types of paradoxes and their resolutions.

SOURCE

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes .. just as 'omnipotence' is .. (ie: a concept).
So I guess I didn't understand why you said .. just curious about why you might see it that way(?)
Surely all concepts are subjective?

I talking about subjective experience as opposed to objective analysis. It's a compatibilist version of free will that says that in a determinsitic world, the concept of free will makes sense only in terms of the subjective experience of decision making. Objectively, determinism means that there is fundamentally no 'freedom' or even 'choice'; they are meaningless - Laplace's demon can predict exactly what you'll do every time; in that sense, the concept of free will is incoherent.

 

[Speedwell]

How 'bout we just call it "paradox resolution"?

SOURCE

An interesting article--which rests on the assumption of logical non-realism.

 

[SelfSim]

I talking about subjective experience as opposed to objective analysis. It's a compatibilist version of free will that says that in a determinsitic world, the concept of free will makes sense only in terms of the subjective experience of decision making. Objectively, determinism means that there is fundamentally no 'freedom' or even 'choice'; they are meaningless - Laplace's demon can predict exactly what you'll do every time; in that sense, the concept of free will is incoherent.

Its all quite amusing when one bothers to observe that its actually a mind doing the conceptualising all of: a deterministic world, free will and subjective experiences of decision making, in the first place!
Its all about a mind trying to rationalise how it itself, is capable of considering mutual exclusivity amongst these notions, even though that mind is obviously capable of conceiving a world where they all 'exist' and overlap simultaneously ... because that's actually exactly how that mind thinks!

No matter how hard we try, we cannot step outside of our own minds .. even by 'creating' omnipotent entities (using our subjective free will)!
Even referencing a objective scientific (QM) viewpoint, we have no idea where strict determinism breaks down .. so discussing what fundamental randomness does to these issues is pretty well irrelevant also.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Then what do you call it, when it has been rendered otiose?

My guess is: "mislabeled."

What is "it"? My guess is I'd call "it" irrelevant.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

How 'bout we just call it "paradox resolution"?

SOURCE

Did you understand the article? It clearly says that resolution of a paradox takes one of three forms (none of which actually solve the paradox):
1. Impossibility, i.e. the paradoxical thing cannot exist.
2. Accept that it's just nonsense.
3. Ignore it.

Which one do you chose as resolution of God's omnipotence?