The Logical Premise?

lesliedellow said:

The thing being debated was whether freewill is compatible with the Calvinist understanding of the Christian God.

You can debate the existence of that God until the cows come home. Philosophers and theologians have long given up on the idea that the question can be definitively settled, one way or the other.

Click to expand...

The Calvinist understanding of God seems to be that something can be a free choice while still being completely unavoidable. The two ideas contradict each other.

quatona said:

Actually, I do think this would be a good start - the beginning of a reductio ad absurdum, which can be a pretty powerful means of refuting an idea.

Click to expand...

Then let's try applying it to what Leslie said in post 164.

It would quickly lead us to the conclusion that things are moral because they are what God says are moral.

But are they moral due to the fact God says they are moral? If God said that murder was moral, would that make murder actually moral?

Or does God say they are moral because the things he describes contain some inherent moral-ness?

Kylie said:

If somebody's actions were dependent on random events, then doesn't that prove that events cannot be foreordained?

Click to expand...

To describe something as random is only to say that there is no cause we can ascribe to it. That doesn't necessarily mean there is no cause which can be ascribed, when seen from a Gods-eye-view.

Kylie said:

Then let's try applying it to what Leslie said in post 164.

It would quickly lead us to the conclusion that things are moral because they are what God says are moral.

But are they moral due to the fact God says they are moral? If God said that murder was moral, would that make murder actually moral?

Or does God say they are moral because the things he describes contain some inherent moral-ness?

Click to expand...

The former. As I keep saying, there is no authority superior to God, and God is the creator of all things, other than himself.

Kylie said:

Then let's try applying it to what Leslie said in post 164.

It would quickly lead us to the conclusion that things are moral because they are what God says are moral.

But are they moral due to the fact God says they are moral? If God said that murder was moral, would that make murder actually moral?

Or does God say they are moral because the things he describes contain some inherent moral-ness?

Click to expand...

First off, Kylie, this doesn´t seem to help answering the question whether God exists or not (which, I think, was the topic - correct me if I am wrong).
Secondly, and more generally, you changed from an epistemological question to a question of valuation.

Can´t speak for Leslie, but I suspect he´ll answer that things are good or bad because God says so (I think that´s what is meant my "moral authority"). Basically it is a "might makes right" understanding.
This answer will, of course, cause some problems. Then again, I wouldn´t know how to answer "What makes something moral or immoral?" without running into such problems. Do you?
(Of course, it all depends on your definition of "moral"...)

(Sidenote: I think "murder" is not a good example, because "murder" is defined as "immoral killing", and thus there can´t be "moral murder", by way of using language properly.)

lesliedellow said:

More to the point, are they interested in debating a generic god concept; devoid of any real content.

Click to expand...

I should hope not. Let us know when you see one!

I suppose it is fine as a way of passing the time, for those who have a taste for such things.

Click to expand...

Life of the mind is about the only thing I truly value. In some ways, however, I envy those for whom there is no "wonder" or "difficulty" in concepts.

If problems are solved by merely ignoring them, they lose all manner of interest. And there are no real solutions that come from ignoring.

What I think is most sad in modern religion, especially fundamentalist variants of Christianity, is an abrogation of the need to even think. I understand the hope for a God who wishes His followers to come to them as little children, innocent and unencumbered by introspection or thought. It fills a kind of need for a "loving Father", which is an admirable and desirable conception of God. But since I am unburdened by the need to remain pure of thought, I am more interested in the nuts and bolts of "God". What is implied by the images presented of that God?

I think this is why I love the Medieval Church's attempts at utilizing reason and logic to understand God.

If there is any true "gift" God gave man upon hi creation it is the power of logic and reason. As such when I see people desperately trying to get rid of it I feel they are giving up that gift.

I can not understand a conception of God in which He gives us that gift and then wants us to throw it away.

But, again, it is not my faith. It is, however, the main part of that faith that I find compelling and interesting. And it can be in there.

Kylie said:

That makes no sense.

In order to debate the position that Christian theology is wrong, I have to start form the assumption that it is NOT wrong?

Click to expand...

Personally, as an atheist I start with the null hypothesis: "There is no God" and work to reject that. So far I have found insufficient reason to reject the null.

So, Kylie, I agree with your point that it is perfectly rational to debate all theology from that standpoint.

HOWEVER, if one wishes to debate with Christians over a specific point of the theology I find it more interesting to work within the confines of the faith itself. So if I were to be debating a Christian over whether they should support gun control I would work within the framework of Jesus' actual existence and his exhortation in Matthew 26:52. In that case I would be working from the assumption that God is real and Jesus was God, etc.

lesliedellow said:

I would regard it as debatable whether or not quantum effects are of any relevance in the macroscopic world.

Click to expand...

As Kylie noted: tell it to Marie Curie. But more to the point, Quantum underlies my work every day. I'm a chemist. NOW, your point that it is debatable whether it has any relevance on the macroscale is kinda-sorta true. In that I don't worry about Quantum indeterminance in my mixing of chemicals together. BUT, it is all part and parcel of what it is I'm working with.

Further: even on a larger scale, at the size of molecules, there is a stochastic feature of chemical mixtures. When we dump reactant A into Reactant B the reaction occurs because two molecules (A and B) meet each other with just the right speed and at just the right orientation to react. These things (speed and orientation) in a fluid are quite random. Yes, on a large scale we can model the reaction quite accurately, but at the level of the molecules they are pretty random. You would be hard pressed to figure out exactly which molecules will react.

There is randomness in many scales in nature.

Even if they were, it would only make somebody's actions dependent upon random events, and you must decide whether that is any more acceptable to your conception of free will.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily so. IF my actions can be determined by random events it shows that there is no necessary pre-determination (assuming we aren't talking about God orchestrating each atom's actions). BUT it also opens up the possibility that I can make choices. If there is no predetermination, then I could be a determinant force.

Obliquinaut said:

BUT it also opens up the possibility that I can make choices. If there is no predetermination, then I could be a determinant force.

Click to expand...

You could if you think the planet is full of organisms able to act as first causes. To me that sounds intrinsically unlikely. At what point during the evolutionary process did they acquire this ability to break free of the physical laws which control the lives of single cell organisms, and become completely autonomous of the world they exist in?

When a Christian is asked when did a humanoid first become human, and therefore capable of communion with God, at least the Christian can answer, "When God deemed him to have done so."

Obliquinaut said:

But since I am unburdened by the need to remain pure of thought, I am more interested in the nuts and bolts of "God". What is implied by the images presented of that God?

Click to expand...

Welcome to the world of theology. Unfortunately images of God are extracted from the Bible, and, at least in theory, even the medieval church recognised that as normative.

lesliedellow said:

You could if you think the planet is full of organisms able to act as first causes. To me that sounds intrinsically unlikely. At what point during the evolutionary process did they acquire this ability to break free of the physical laws which control the lives of single cell organisms, and become completely autonomous of the world they exist in?

Click to expand...

Single celled organisms presumably have no choice because they are little more than bags of self-replicating chemical components. No brain in which to formulate thought.

So "choice" enters in when a brain exists. Presumably a brain that can envision a variety of options, however crudely. (So it is not simply limited to humans, but for my following example I will utilize humans in this case)

Humans: well developed mental faculties that can envision a variety of options and outcomes both potential and real. Imaginary and concrete. Also having memory as well as the ability for inductive reasoning.

I come to an intersection: do I turn right or left? I can envision the ice cream stand to my left and the dentist office to my right. I would rather go to the ice cream stand because I have fond memories of ice cream and less fond memories of the dentist. Of course in so doing I may ultimately have to go to the right at a later date if I eat too much ice cream and wind up in pain, thereby giving me impetus to turn to the right on my next visit to the intersection).

Now this is putting aside all the potential research in fMRI which shows intention may actually precede conscious thought (I don't know how firm that research is at this time). BUT it is a relatively simple concept.

This is not to say that you can't imagine a world in which I was "pre-programmed" to prefer ice cream and sweet things (it is part of my biology). But it at least allows for a rational reason for me to be the determinant of my actions.

When a Christian is asked when did a humanoid first become human, and therefore capable of communion with God, at least the Christian can answer, "When God deemed him to have done so."

Click to expand...

And it has zero value to any technical conversation. Humans are no more provably capable of this as they are of riding a unicorn. It also serves to somehow delineate humanity from the rest of life which I find so horrifically self-aggrandizing of humans and usually only serves our worse animal natures.

God is thus used for the human need to feel as if they are not part of the ecosystem in a more fundamental way. As if there's something ineffable and superior about us. The same animal that is single-handedly actively destroying the ecosystem that will sustain it. Because we are "superior" (beloved of God) we are able to justify our own self-immolation while God remains silent.

lesliedellow said:

Welcome to the world of theology. Unfortunately images of God are extracted from the Bible, and, at least in theory, even the medieval church recognised that as normative.

Click to expand...

Yet you seem to find no value in the Medieval church's normative images as you decried Anselm?

The images of God from the Bible, as I noted earlier, are usually contradictory and paint an imperfect and confusing picture at best. That is why I prefer the more rational approach of if the God of the Bible exists what are His attributes as indicated from the Bible.

Of course, when I am less desirous of debating the number of angels on the head of pin, my rational side uses the often contradictory and confusing images of God in the Bible to draw the assumption that this image of God is fully the construct of flawed and often contradictory humans who cobbled Him together over millennia.

If it looks like an elk, quacks like a duck and there is no way to verify that the Elkoduck exists I will assume it does not exist.

Obliquinaut said:

Now this is putting aside all the potential research in fMRI which shows intention may actually precede conscious thought (I don't know how firm that research is at this time). BUT it is a relatively simple concept.

Click to expand...

Well, that is hardly new. The problem there is that when people object to something like the compatibilist theory of freewill, it is because they take freewill to mean an undetermined conscious choice. But here we have the brain working to make a decision before they become aware of it.


A quote from the biologist Steve Jones: "We know almost nothing about the brain, and what we do know is probably wrong."

lesliedellow said:

Well, that is hardly new. The problem there is that when people object to something like the compatibilist theory of freewill, it is because they take freewill to mean an undetermined conscious choice. But here we have the brain working to make a decision before they become aware of it.

Click to expand...

What is your denomination's advice to a person who has been reprobated?

Obliquinaut said:

Yet you seem to find no value in the Medieval church's normative images as you decried Anselm?

Click to expand...

I decried Anselm because his definition of God amounted to special pleading. It was put together for the sole purpose of trying to make the Ontological Argument work. As a result, even Christians are generally not very impressed by it. Apart from existence not being an attribute, of course.

The images of God from the Bible, as I noted earlier, are usually contradictory and paint an imperfect and confusing picture at best.

Click to expand...

That, of course, is a matter of opinion.

AV1611VET said:

What is your denomination's advice to a person who has been reprobated?

Click to expand...

It is a truism of Calvinist theology that the identity of the elect is known only to God.

lesliedellow said:

It is a truism of Calvinist theology that the identity of the elect is known only to God.

Click to expand...

Okay, thanks.

lesliedellow said:

I decried Anselm because his definition of God amounted to special pleading. It was put together for the sole purpose of trying to make the Ontological Argument work. As a result, even Christians are generally not very impressed by it. Apart from existence not being an attribute, of course.

Click to expand...

Actually as I stated before, it seems to me you rely on the core of Anselm's description of God as the most high.

I am not going to sit here and say the Ontological argument is persuasive for the very same reason you note (existence is not predicate). But I would hope that you would look more closely at what I am talking about rather than simply impugning Anselms motives.

Anselm's description of God as the ultimate is really what you seem to be using yourself. You may not find the argument persuasive but it seems you use the same God concept on which the argument is built.

That, of course, is a matter of opinion.

Click to expand...

I guess. But the same God who seemed to ask for murder of innocent people (through the word of his prophet) in 1 Sam 15:3 also commanded humans to not murder innocent people in Exodus 20:13.

You can make the argument that God has a right to murder whomever He wants, but in this case He is asking (again, through his prophet) people to murder in direct contravention of His own rules.

I also have great difficulty with coordinating the vengeful God of the book of Joshua in which His people are delivered of lands through violence and bloodshed of lesser beings as the same God who sent his only Begotten Son to save the entire world.

I suppose it is my limited capability to ignore the contradictions. As I said, I greatly prefer the God of the New Testament, but I wouldn't want to be a heretic like the Marcionites and ignore the Old.

So what am I supposed to do?

Maybe I should ignore the inconvenient and focus on the picture of God that most pleases me!

Obliquinaut said:

Anselm's description of God as the ultimate is really what you seem to be using yourself. You may not find the argument persuasive but it seems you use the same God concept on which the argument is built.

Click to expand...

Anselm's desciption is:

"a being than which nothing greater can be conceived"

So that's God described in less than a sentence.

Part of the problem with it is that it presupposes that God can be conceived of in the first place. Given that our language and concepts are derived wholly from the world around us - leaving modern physics aside for the moment - that is a highly questionable idea. The Bible is full of anthropomorphic images, not because they are accurate, but because they are the only way we have of talking about God. (The obvious danger of anthropomorphism is that it can make God sound like a human writ large.)

I also have great difficulty with coordinating the vengeful God of the book of Joshua in which His people are delivered of lands through violence and bloodshed of lesser beings as the same God who sent his only Begotten Son to save the entire world.

I suppose it is my limited capability to ignore the contradictions. As I said, I greatly prefer the God of the New Testament, but I wouldn't want to be a heretic like the Marcionites and ignore the Old.

Click to expand...

You only have to roll the clock back less than a hundred years to find a God who was nothing but wrath, wrath, wrath. Today the pendulum has swung to the other extreme, and he is nothing but love, love, love. In the Bible God is possessed of both attributes, and the truth lies somewhere in between. Anybody who thinks the God of wrath is missing from the New Testament should try reading Revelation, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, or Jesus' sharp words to the Pharisees.

So what am I supposed to do?

Click to expand...

That is up to you.

Maybe I should ignore the inconvenient and focus on the picture of God that most pleases me!

Click to expand...

You don't have to like everything you find in the Bible to realise that picking and choosing may get you a god you feel comfortable with, but it will also get you an idol.

lesliedellow said:

You only have to roll the clock back less than a hundred years to find a God who was nothing but wrath, wrath, wrath. Today the pendulum has swung to the other extreme, and he is nothing but love, love, love. In the Bible God is possessed of both attributes, and the truth lies somewhere in between.

Click to expand...

So are you saying that the 10 Commandments are provisional? What about the example I gave of 1 Sam15:3?

I can understand if God were like a regular person and could do bad and good, but it seems like the God of the Bible actually espouses two opposing positions from time to time. Is God simply a "super human"? A la the Greek gods? Flawed and contingent on moods?

That is, indeed, a very confusing God.

I understand that in your conception of God "Good is whatever God decrees", but it sounds like you might be edging over to "Good is whatever God decrees at some specific time which can change in a couple days". Which is a very, very confusing and disturbing conception of God.

If the 6th Commandment is an indicator that murder of the innocent is wrong, is it simply wrong until God has need of his human creation to murder at some later date (as appears to be the case in 1 Sam15:3)?

That is up to you.

Click to expand...

Apparently not, if your theology is correct.

You don't have to like everything you find in the Bible to realise that picking and choosing may get you a god you feel comfortable with, but it will also get you an idol.

Click to expand...

You see, I think that is exactly what people of faith always do. The God of the BIble is, as you point out, the highest and the arbiter of all things, yet the faithful also tell us God stands for right over wrong, yet clearly the God of the Bible holds contrary positions on what is right and wrong depending on the day.

The faithful want a God who loves them but sometimes it seems that same God is more than happy to allow his followers to consign "the other" to the flames. And yet that same God, through his only begotten son (who was homoiosious with him) tells us to love our neighbor.

That indeed we are told to resist not evil but turn the other cheek, while earlier God's chosen people were encouraged to pillage and kill with all due alacrity because He had promised them some land.

So when you tell me you wish to use only the God described in the bible, I'm still wondering: which God? On which day?