Bi-Weekly report: Ben Love from Ex-Christian.net
This week, I want to bring up an article from Ben Love on Ex-Christian.net:
http://new.exchristian.net/2016/05/the-main-reason-i-turned-atheist.html
Basically, his argument for Atheism centers around the concept of Free Will:
Stan did an entry on this guy:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-irrefutable-argument-for-atheism.html
Here is an excerpt:
It reminds me of a guy that I told Joe about a few years ago named Gerald Woerlee (an anesthesiologist from The Netherlands, and a hard core skeptic and materialist).
On his site (it’s gone now), he had an entry about Jesus and Mohammed. In the Jesus section, he said something about how God and Mary should be stoned to death (showing a verse in Deuteronomy) because they had Jesus out of wedlock.
http://new.exchristian.net/2016/05/the-main-reason-i-turned-atheist.html
Basically, his argument for Atheism centers around the concept of Free Will:
The aspect I’m referring to is the problem of Free Will. What is free will? Free will is a doctrine that accompanies most monotheistic expressions of the divine. That is to say, most religions that subscribe to a single God (and even a few that are polytheistic) typically believe that this God, while still being absolutely sovereign, has surrendered a bit of control to his creations. In other words, free will states that we the creations are permitted by the Creator to exercise a measure of autonomy in our personal lives.
On the surface, this perhaps sounds pretty good and may not necessarily pose any logical problems to the casual observer, but the problems begin to mount exponentially when we note that existing within the parameters of this free will is the implication that one of the creations could, by use of this autonomy, choose to reject the Creator. This poses a serious problem because not only does it put this particular created being at odds with his Creator (not a pleasant situation if indeed this Creator is real), it also raises a logical contradiction that absolutely refutes the entire theology. And it is this contradiction that, more than anything else, led me to conclude cerebrally that Christianity is nothing more than exercise in the absurd.
I call this contradiction the Problem of God’s Complicity. I’ve raised this issue with at least a dozen Christian thinkers and not one of them has been able to give me a suitable response. In fact, I observed that their collective attitude toward this problem was one of complete disinterest. I suppose it is easy to be indifferent to that which could imply your own downfall. At any rate, the Problem of God’s Complicity can be stated as follows:
If X=Y, and Y=Z, then X=Z, making Y superfluous
Stan did an entry on this guy:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-irrefutable-argument-for-atheism.html
Here is an excerpt:
Presumably Ben doesn’t really think that God=Human is a substitute for X=Y. Because it is obvious that:Check out the comments section on both entries. Lots of good discussion. It seems to me that (after reading through the comments on Stan’s blog) atheists want to see God as a thing in creation and hold him up to scientific analysis.
God /=Human
So it must be a sub-characteristic of God which is equal to human. Since this is about free will and culpability, then it might be one of those. Let’s try Free Will first:
Free Will of God=Free Will of Humans
Well, that doesn’t work, because God’s free will is much different and more powerful than the free will of humans which is miniscule in comparison. Even if the categories overlap, God is not asserting the same free will decisions which a human is asserting. So, if they are not equal, the identity equation doesn’t apply.
It reminds me of a guy that I told Joe about a few years ago named Gerald Woerlee (an anesthesiologist from The Netherlands, and a hard core skeptic and materialist).
On his site (it’s gone now), he had an entry about Jesus and Mohammed. In the Jesus section, he said something about how God and Mary should be stoned to death (showing a verse in Deuteronomy) because they had Jesus out of wedlock.
Comments
Stan's rebuttal, aside from rattling off his usual litany of logical fallacies (which is really tiresome, coming from an egotistical jerk who is constantly committing those fallacies himself), claims that humans have full responsibility for their choices, both intellectually and morally: "Theism relates that God expects humans to know and understand the outcome of their free will choices." Really? So Adam and Eve made a free choice to condemn their progeny forever to live in the depths of depravity, with full knowledge of the consequences? Is that what Stan thinks is the decision of a mature, understanding person? And wasn't it the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they ate from? In fact, the genesis story describes them as innocent and child-like. They were easily deceived, and they thought they could hide from God - just like a child.
And what does all that have to do with our own free will? Well, if you buy the Christian account of the fallen nature of mankind, and the need to be saved by the Jeebus man, it's all their fault. We can't help being sinful, because are fallen. It's our nature.
And how could any rational person think that
And, Adam and Eve are stereotypes. Genesis was written in poetic form.
- Either Hee Haw or Laugh-in.
And, Adam and Eve are stereotypes. Genesis was written in poetic form.
- That makes no difference. The story exists in the bible for a reason. It is the basis for a belief that is central to Christianity: the fallen nature of man. However, it is impossible to square this with the idea that man is in full control of his actions. Either we have free will, or we can blame our deeds on the devil and our fallen nature. Take your pick. But if you insist that we freely make our own choices, then you can toss out half of what it says in the New Testament.
we don't go on your site and say "Dorwins." mocking and ridiculing scared beliefs is not cleaver it[s the fact of a bully and a person with no common decency toward the feelings of others.
- Can't you see that the two things are contradictory? If our will is truly free, then we there is nothing pushing us in the direction of sin. If there is something influencing our behavior, that's causation. It isn't free will. You can't have it both ways.
If you try to gloss over the concept by saying it's only a "capacity" for bad behavior, then the whole idea of fallen nature is meaningless. It's just a rationalization of your contradictory beliefs. We also have the "capacity" to be good. But our nature is what makes us behave the way we do.
we don't go on your site and say "Dorwins." mocking and ridiculing scared beliefs is not cleaver
- First, I have heard distortions of the name of Darwin and others. Second, it's not an insult to me, because I don't worship him or anyone else.
2. Dorwin may not be an insult to you, but someone else may take offense to the Jeebus line. It seems to me that you and some of the people that post on your blog say petty things like that.
And I will refrain from saying "Jeebus".
Distortion of what I said.no two types of fallen nature
- Can't you see that the two things are contradictory? If our will is truly free, then we there is nothing pushing us in the direction of sin. If there is something influencing our behavior, that's causation. It isn't free will. You can't have it both ways.
you are just imposing your own concepts on the issue, there's nothing necessarily contradictory, /was Freud contradicting himself when he said they ego balances between id and superego? According to St. Augustine ala Reinhold Niebuhr sin is the result of anxiety and self transcendence. it's in that self transcendent aspect that we are capable of decision-making.
If you try to gloss over the concept by saying it's only a "capacity" for bad behavior, then the whole idea of fallen nature is meaningless. It's just a rationalization of your contradictory beliefs. We also have the "capacity" to be good. But our nature is what makes us behave the way we do.
what is meaningless about it. it means we are drawn to certain tendencies . It doesn't';t contradict to say we can resist, it means there's an inner dynamic.you are just labeling it but you are to really giving a reason. you have a static concept of human nature.
not surprising but your view of personality is very one dimensional.
we don't go on your site and say "Dorwins." mocking and ridiculing scared beliefs is not cleaver
- First, I have heard distortions of the name of Darwin and others. Second, it's not an insult to me, because I don't worship him or anyone else.
O bull shit I've never heard that. Not an insult not you: you are not the one who is offended, it's not about it's about us. that's like saying its not an insult if I call Martian Luther King by the n world because I'm not black.
- Please provide us with some reference that gives a scientific explanation of the concept of "causation", and then kindly point out where I have gone wrong.
- I quoted your own words. Copy and paste.
there's nothing necessarily contradictory
- Not if you're a Christian desperately trying to find a way to make your contradictory beliefs sound logical. Face it. It is contradictory to say that we are sinful because of our fallen nature, and at the same time we exercise free will in making mature and informed decisions to sin.
you have a static concept of human nature.
- My understanding of human nature is not driven by religious superstition.
that's like saying its not an insult if I call Martian Luther King by the n world because I'm not black.
- Sorry, but you don't understand. If you make a statement like that to me, it is reasonable to presume that your intent is to direct an insult at me. I don't know if someone else would be insulted by what you say, but that doesn't matter, because you said it to me, not them. At any rate, it doesn't work on me. As I said, I have no objects of worship, so it is impossible for you to insult me by presuming that I do, and then trying to demean the supposed object of my worship.
read Hume, then read Popper
No it's not. cause is a mechanism that produces an effect. influence can be all kinds of things. example: reading Wallace Stevens might be an influence u-on my desire to wrote poetry but it's not a though because read Stevens I can't choose not to write poetry.
There may be several competing influences, and one wins out in the end. But you can't legitimately make the claim that it was a free choice, can you?
yes of course you can. Do you even believe in Free will? Because I suspect your argument is tautological.
choice made under pressure could still b3 a free choice.
It is our nature. It's our normal disposition. And I did nor make myself. I did not design myself to be a sinner. If anyone is responsible for designing me, that's who made me what I am. If that person made me a sinner, he ought to take responsibility for what he has done.
we choose to sin a d we can choose not to sin. there can be things we can't help but do reactio9ns we can't help but make but we can choose to do the one thing that will give us what we need to change. That is the one thing you resist without all your might.
we have all been there. we know.
think about it. if you can't resist sin how is it you resist God when you have been exposed to God?. cause I is so smart like.
Hmmm, why don't you first give me a "scientific explanation" of influence?
The point is that the whole notion of causation that most people have is erroneous. It is largely the product of ancient beliefs, such as Aristotle's "four causes" that have little or no bearing on reality. It is wrong to say that "A causes B", when the truth is that A only plays a role in B, and in fact B is the result of an infinite number of factors that all combine to produce the outcome.
Let's look at an example. Did you ever hear of the "butterfly effect"? The idea is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa can cause a slight disturbance in the air, which has come cascading effect in air currents, ultimately causing a hurricane in Florida. But it would be pretty ridiculous to say that the butterfly caused the hurricane. Why? Because we know that there are a myriad of factors that all work together to produce that hurricane. It may well be true that the hurricane would never have happened if not for the butterfly, but it would be equally true that each of those other factors is an essential component in the making of the hurricane. And yet there is not a single one of them that can be named as "the cause" of it.
- See my previous reply to BK.
Do you even believe in Free will? Because I suspect your argument is tautological. choice made under pressure could still b3 a free choice.
- Choice made under pressure is not "free", is it? it can still be a choice, bit not a choice without influence.
think about it. if you can't resist sin how is it you resist God when you have been exposed to God?. cause I is so smart like.
- Why don't you think about it? If you resist the urge to sin, there must be something in you that is influencing your decision. Maybe it's not really true that your natural tendency is to be a sinner.
a while ago you were saying all influences are causes and are deterministic. that is big contradiction
Let's look at an example. Did you ever hear of the "butterfly effect"? The idea is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa can cause a slight disturbance in the air, which has come cascading effect in air currents, ultimately causing a hurricane in Florida.
yes that was a joke in grad school 'that's what we accused people of believing when we wanted to say that they were superficial and intellectual lightweights.
but it would be pretty ridiculous to say that the butterfly caused the hurricane. Why? Because we know that there are a myriad of factors that all work together to produce that hurricane. It may well be true that the hurricane would never have happened if not for the butterfly, but it would be equally true that each of those other factors is an essential component in the making of the hurricane. And yet there is not a single one of them that can be named as "the cause" of it.
that does not allow you to say that your are not responsible for your actions. There are action that are clear cut enough, That is a false analogy. human behavior is not so mjultipfacioted.
- See my previous reply to BK.
yes I answered it it[ds a cheap rationalization and a contradiction to previous position. It can't be that you are both a victim of determinism and there are no direct causes.
Meta:Do you even believe in Free will? Because I suspect your argument is tautological. choice made under pressure could still b3 a free choice.
- Choice made under pressure is not "free", is it? it can still be a choice, bit not a choice without influence.
you didn't answer my question. so you rationalize al your behaviors but do you never blame anyone for anything? what about those evil fundies aren't they guilty of hurting people?
Meta:think about it. if you can't resist sin how is it you resist God when you have been exposed to God?. cause I is so smart like.
- Why don't you think about it? If you resist the urge to sin, there must be something in you that is influencing your decision.
I thinking about it before you were born man. that's why I developed my theory of culpability. It is not true that we are j8ust automatons pushed back and forth by deterministic causes we can';t control that's just a dumb rationalization. there are complex dynamic forces at work in humanity. But there are decisions and behaviors for which we can be held accountable, there is a seat of judgment. there is a point of will where desire springs fromj an original singularity within was. our spirit is the final cause of our desires and the heart is the arbiter of jugement.
Maybe it's not really true that your natural tendency is to be a sinner.
you just said it was how could it not be if you are determined by forces you cantcontrol? it could be that Calvin is right
- Joe, you need to listen. That is not what I said. We all use the word 'cause' in an informal way, but in a scientific sense, it is used in a more restrictive manner. Causation is defined as "the capacity of one variable to influence another". It is generally wrong to say "A causes B", in the sense that A is the the one thing that makes B happen. What makes B happen is the entire set of things that have some influence on B.
that's what we accused people of believing when we wanted to say that they were superficial and intellectual lightweights.
- It was an attempt to illustrate a point. An intellectual lightweight would fail to grasp the point.
that does not allow you to say that your are not responsible for your actions. There are action that are clear cut enough, That is a false analogy. human behavior is not so mjultipfacioted.
- Human behavior is not so simple as you would like to believe. When you deliberate about a choice of actions, you are weighing various competing influencing factors. There is self-interest and altruism, for example. Even the desire to please an imaginary god can play a role. But (aside from external influences) all those things are part of your make-up. Of course I hold you responsible for your actions, to the extent that you are able to exercise control over what you do.
it[ds a cheap rationalization and a contradiction to previous position. It can't be that you are both a victim of determinism and there are no direct causes.
- It's not a contradiction, and you are wrong. "Direct cause" is essentially a meaningless term.
you didn't answer my question. so you rationalize al your behaviors but do you never blame anyone for anything? what about those evil fundies aren't they guilty of hurting people?
- I asked you before to stop putting words in my mouth. What have you ever heard me say about "fundies"?
It is not true that we are j8ust automatons pushed back and forth by deterministic causes we can';t control that's just a dumb rationalization. there are complex dynamic forces at work in humanity.
- Now you are contradicting yourself. Didn't you just say "human behavior is not so mjultipfacioted"? But yes, I agree that there are complex dynamic forces at work. That's what I've been saying. And yes, we really do deliberate about what choices to make. We are not billiard balls. But it's those complex forces that make us tick. They ultimately combine together to drive our process of deliberation. Take away one or more of those forces, and our decision will not be the same. That's determinism, brother.
it could be that Calvin is right
- Calvinism is more intellectually honest than your "I was born a sinner, but I have free will."
If you bring God into the picture, he becomes the ultimate cause of everything. What I said about myriad causal factors or influences is still true. But God must be seen as the one thing that is behind all of it. I don't see how you can escape that.
From a design perspective, with God as the architect of everything, he must have deliberately made us to be vulnerable to the influences of our sinful nature. Could he have designed us to more virtuous? Why not? It doesn't imply that we would lose our ability to deliberate about our own actions. It just makes the choice easier. If God wants us to be good, and also wants us not to be robots, there's no inherent conflict. We could be good people who are not robots. But that's not the Christian vision of what God has done with us. It was his design choice to make us sinful.
The idea, they say, is that we need to learn lessons in life. That makes no sense at all. If we are to spend eternity in the spiritual realm, what is the point of corrupting our souls with earthly influences in the first place? Those lessons are meaningless unless we continue to live in this world.
Delete
Blogger im-skeptical said...
a while ago you were saying all influences are causes and are deterministic. that is big contradiction
- Joe, you need to listen. That is not what I said. We all use the word 'cause' in an informal way, but in a scientific sense, it is used in a more restrictive manner. Causation is defined as "the capacity of one variable to influence another". It is generally wrong to say "A causes B", in the sense that A is the the one thing that makes B happen. What makes B happen is the entire set of things that have some influence on B.
pat of your basi MO to bakpeddel then caliom you never said it. Here is something you saiod above. I'n going to hodl]d you to it
<<< Can't you see that the two things are contradictory? If our will is truly free, then we there is nothing pushing us in the direction of sin. If there is something influencing our behavior, that's causation. It isn't free will. You can't have it both ways.>>>
I will treat that as a formal statement of your position it is wrong. there is no contradiction between sin nature and free will.
Obviously we have the free will to adopt the solution to sin nature
god provided. the fact that we fight doing that is the sin.
no you said
that's what we accused people of believing when we wanted to say that they were superficial and intellectual lightweights.
- It was an attempt to illustrate a point. An intellectual lightweight would fail to grasp the point.
I know I was just funn'n ya.
that does not allow you to say that your are not responsible for your actions. There are action that are clear cut enough, That is a false analogy. human behavior is not so mjultipfacioted.
- Human behavior is not so simple as you would like to believe.
I did not say it was simple and I don't believe it is. But it[s not hopeless and it's not determined.
When you deliberate about a choice of actions, you are weighing various competing influencing factors. There is self-interest and altruism, for example. Even the desire to please an imaginary god can play a role. But (aside from external influences) all those things are part of your make-up. Of course I hold you responsible for your actions, to the extent that you are able to exercise control over what you do.
there are some choices we can help making. like caption Kirk said "I am a killer but I don't have to kill today."
- It's not a contradiction, and you are wrong. "Direct cause" is essentially a meaningless term.
BS that's excuse. if we were arguing miracles you would say there laws of cause and effect that can't be violated. the reason they took god out of science was because of unalterable nature of cause and effect.
you didn't answer my question. so you rationalize al your behaviors but do you never blame anyone for anything? what about those evil fundies aren't they guilty of hurting people?
- I asked you before to stop putting words in my mouth. What have you ever heard me say about "fundies"?
I ask you a question that[s not words in your mou8th you said the words.well not fundies but above.
It is not true that we are just automatons pushed back and forth by deterministic causes we can';t control that's just a dumb
rationalization. there are complex dynamic forces at work in humanity.
- Now you are contradicting yourself. Didn't you just say "human behavior is not so mjultipfacioted"?
no. you are not listening you are trying to read in what you to be there so you can go on rejecting it.
But yes, I agree that there are complex dynamic forces at work. That's what I've been saying. And yes, we really do deliberate about what choices to make. We are not billiard balls.
you avoided type question. I didn't ask you if you think there are complex forces I asked if you never blame anyone. In 1964 some guys blew up a church and killed several small girls to stop civil rights, are you saying you can[t say that was wrong?
But it's those complex forces that make us tick. They ultimately combine together to drive our process of deliberation. Take away one or more of those forces, and our decision will not be the same. That's determinism, brother.
yes I said I agree with that, but they are not absolute.
it could be that Calvin is right
- Calvinism is more intellectually honest than your "I was born a sinner, but I have free will."
that is called the Arminian position its; a a large segment of Protestant theology typified by Wesley and the Methodists, the church
Christ, fee will Baptists. Catholics have a similar voew and others.
It's not a contradictor and Ive already explicated why. Because we can't resists in in our own selves but we can turn to God and God's grace gives the power to resist it..
no.
What I said about myriad causal factors or influences is still true. But God must be seen as the one thing that is behind all of it. I don't see how you can escape that.
that is a simplistic little atheist failsafe you are taught to intone when you are baked into accorder as a means of dismissing the truth.
we have the choice and we make the wrong choice.
From a design perspective, with God as the architect of everything, he must have deliberately made us to be vulnerable to the influences of our sinful nature. Could he have designed us to more virtuous? Why not?
atheist brain washing. pathetic outmoded theology that hasn't been mainstream since the century before last.no modern theologian thinks of God as an architect .
It doesn't imply that we would lose our ability to deliberate about our own actions. It just makes the choice easier. If God wants us to be good, and also wants us not to be robots, there's no inherent conflict. We could be good people who are not robots. But that's not the Christian vision of what God has done with us. It was his design choice to make us sinful.
you have this stuff about complexity in causation then you have this ultra simplistic big man in the sky notion of god.
The idea, they say, is that we need to learn lessons in life. That makes no sense at all. If we are to spend eternity in the spiritual realm, what is the point of corrupting our souls with earthly influences in the first place? Those lessons are meaningless unless we continue to live in this world.
again your are judging chirality by real shallow cut rate theology that went out of business about centuries ago. that's a real shallow and simplistic way to think about it.
why do we have to learn anything why would god make demands of us.that's so unfair. this is all so childish and simplistic and elementary. I can barely remember I because it's so foreign to anything real theologians talk about.
One of the first things that caught my interest about Reinhold Niebuhr was the way he dealt with sin nature in Nature and desti y.
that really revitalized and modernized my thinning on the gospel. but this guy so in love with his excuses he doesn't want to learn anything.
God did not create us with fallen nature. He didn't make us fall. That is a choicer we accept. The group I grew up in had a concept call :age of accountability I still agree with that We only become culpable when we reach majority mentally and emotionally then we accountable for our actions.
When you deliberate about a choice of actions, you are weighing various competing influencing factors. There is self-interest and altruism, for example. Even the desire to please an imaginary god can play a role. But (aside from external influences) all those things are part of your make-up. Of course I hold you responsible for your actions, to the extent that you are able to exercise control over what you do.
total contradiction because that's what said you told me it was stupid. you said it a contradiction. I said three are some actions we are accountable for you asserted it was blanket statement that all our actions are simple and accountable..
pat of your basi MO to bakpeddel then caliom you never said it. Here is something you saiod above. I'n going to hodl]d you to it
- I don't deny what I said. I only deny what YOU said I said. When you paraphrase me, you get it wrong, because you don't understand what I am telling you. It's not just what I say. You do the same thing for sources that you cite in your articles. You need to listen.
Obviously we have the free will to adopt the solution to sin nature god provided.
- It seems obvious to you because you ignore everything that doesn't fit your beliefs.
I did not say it was simple and I don't believe it is.
- I will quote you directly on both sides. (1)human behavior is not so mjultipfacioted. (2)there are complex dynamic forces at work in humanity. In statement (1) I presume you meant to use the word 'multifaceted'. And that is just another word for 'complex'. Not so complex means 'simple', and contradicts statement (2), which avers that it IS complex. When you accuse me of contradicting myself, you can't put two directly quoted statements side by side that say opposite things, like I have just done.
there are some choices we can help making.
- Yes, we deliberate. But if your nature is to sin, then your decision is to sin. If your nature is to be good, then you will decide not to sin. The outcome of your deliberation was set before you ever thought about it, even if you didn't know it.
BS that's excuse. if we were arguing miracles you would say there laws of cause and effect that can't be violated. the reason they took god out of science was because of unalterable nature of cause and effect.
- There is never one single thing that causes an outcome. The term "direct cause" has no meaning.
I ask you a question that[s not words in your mou8th you said the words.well not fundies but above.
- But what above?
I didn't ask you if you think there are complex forces I asked if you never blame anyone.
- I already told you I hold people responsible for their actions to the extent that they can control them.
It's not a contradictor and Ive already explicated why. Because we can't resists in in our own selves but we can turn to God and God's grace gives the power to resist it..
- Your explanation is a contradiction. If you can't resist, then you can't turn to God. Turning to God is resisting.
these are really stupid issues, They shallow and silly. One of the main reasons I bugged out on atheism. I saw how much more complex and intellectual the Christian answers are, the atheists so simplistic and shallow. Free will contradicts sin nature. l was in third when I figured out what's wrong with that real shallow and simplistic. just a canned responded atheist brain washing gives them an all purpose answer when the get in a corner.
- And clearly, your thinking has not progressed beyond third grade.
total contradiction because that's what said you told me it was stupid. you said it a contradiction. I said three are some actions we are accountable for you asserted it was blanket statement that all our actions are simple and accountable..
- Joe, get past the third grade an try to understand what I say. It is only contradictory in your simplistic understanding.
6/10/2016 10:53:00 AM
Delete
Blogger im-skeptical said...
Joe.
META
pat of your basi MO to bakpeddel then caliom you never said it. Here is something you saiod above. I'n going to hodl]d you to it
- I don't deny what I said. I only deny what YOU said I said. When you paraphrase me, you get it wrong, because you don't understand what I am telling you. It's not just what I say. You do the same thing for sources that you cite in your articles. You need to listen.
You think my paraphrases are wrong because when I summarize you stuff you see how silly your logic is.
META
Obviously we have the free will to adopt the solution to sin nature God provided.
- It seems obvious to you because you ignore everything that doesn't fit your beliefs.
No, I was an atheist, I don[t ignore anything. I remember how I thoughts an atheist KI am constantly testing my ideas against that standard. I was in college debate that taught me to be objective about my7 own argument to be realistic about weather or not an argument really pulls.
META
I did not say it was simple and I don't believe it is.
- I will quote you directly on both sides. (1)human behavior is not so mjultipfacioted. (2)there are complex dynamic forces at work in humanity. In statement (1) I presume you meant to use the word 'multifaceted'. And that is just another word for 'complex'. Not so complex means 'simple', and contradicts statement (2), which avers that it IS complex. When you accuse me of contradicting myself, you can't put two directly quoted statements side by side that say opposite things, like I have just done.
I said not so multifaceted that we can[t make certain decisions."I did not say it's totally or overall simple. you re taking it out of context
META
there are some choices we can help making.
- Yes, we deliberate. But if your nature is to sin, then your decision is to sin. If your nature is to be good, then you will decide not to sin. The outcome of your deliberation was set before you ever thought about it, even if you didn't know it.
No because you are ignoring the countervailing factor. I said we are caught between two opposing forces. you are taking the good one out, just assuming sin is the only influence.
META
BS that's excuse. if we were arguing miracles you would say there laws of cause and effect that can't be violated. the reason they took god out of science was because of unalterable nature of cause and effect.
- There is never one single thing that causes an outcome. The term "direct cause" has no meaning.
that's irrelevant. it doesn't change the fact that the world is not totally deterministic.
META
I ask you a question that[s not words in your mou8th you said the words.well not fundies but above.
- But what above?
hu? o I meant what was said above in the post.
META
I didn't ask you if you think there are complex forces I asked if you never blame anyone.
- I already told you I hold people responsible for their actions to the extent that they can control them.
on what basis. are not arguing that wed are decremented and there's not free will?
META
It's not a contradictor and Ive already explicated why. Because we can't resists in in our own selves but we can turn to God and God's grace gives the power to resist it..
- Your explanation is a contradiction. If you can't resist, then you can't turn to God. Turning to God is resisting.
you are just being too literal minded. It's bleeding obvious that I meant can't resist certain kinds of temptations. you are wasting mg my time. it is not necessary to make me spell that out.
META
these are really stupid issues, They shallow and silly. One of the main reasons I bugged out on atheism. I saw how much more complex and intellectual the Christian answers are, the atheists so simplistic and shallow. Free will contradicts sin nature. l was in third when I figured out what's wrong with that real shallow and simplistic. just a canned responded atheist brain washing gives them an all purpose answer when the get in a corner.
- And clearly, your thinking has not progressed beyond third grade.
shall I? O , I can't resist the temptation. still puts me three grades ahead of you. ahahahaah.l
META
total contradiction because that's what said you told me it was stupid. you said it a contradiction. I said three are some actions we are accountable for you asserted it was blanket statement that all our actions are simple and accountable..
- Joe, get past the third grade an try to understand what I say. It is only contradictory in your simplistic understanding.
I guess we are doing that to each other. that[s what happens when you have no respect for your opponent
- Most Christians who claim to be ex-atheists were never actual atheists in the first place. See further discussion here.
you re taking it out of context
- OK, fine. Now if only you would try to place my words in their context and understand what I say ...
No because you are ignoring the countervailing factor. I said we are caught between two opposing forces. you are taking the good one out, just assuming sin is the only influence.
- You're wrong. I specifically said there are competing influences, and one win out over the other.
if we were arguing miracles you would say there laws of cause and effect that can't be violated. the reason they took god out of science was because of unalterable nature of cause and effect.
- Wrong again. I would say the laws of nature can't be violated. Science has no use for "laws of cause and effect".
that's irrelevant. it doesn't change the fact that the world is not totally deterministic.
- You are talking about things being deterministic - not me. In this entire conversation, I used the term 'determinism' exactly one time, and only in a limited sense. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly mad claims about what I supposedly said, that I didn't actually say.
I meant what was said above in the post.
- OK. There were many things said "above". If you don't tell me what you're referring to, then I don't know what you're asking.
on what basis. are not arguing that wed are decremented and there's not free will?
- I am not a fatalist. All mental activity is a physical processes, and as such follows the laws of physics. In that regard, it is deterministic. But as I said, we are not billiard balls. We participate in the process. It's called deliberation. Various aspects of our mental makeup come into play in the deliberative process. If the bad influences outweigh the good influences, we make bad choices (and this is a deterministic process). But we are all part of a society that must live together. So if your bad side is stronger than your good side, you can either take some action to reinforce the positive aspect of your own nature, or you represent a threat to the rest of us. People are a threat to society should be restrained from acting upon their nature.
you are just being too literal minded. It's bleeding obvious that I meant can't resist certain kinds of temptations. you are wasting mg my time. it is not necessary to make me spell that out.
- You are blind to what is literally true. It's bleeding obvious that when you can't resist some influence, you are not exercising free will.