Key
-
Posts
1,555 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Key
-
-
3 hours ago, cuchulain said:
Adoption of another culture's events certainly wouldn't be wrong if credit was given. However not only is credit lacking but the thieves deliberately meant to harm the original culture by demonizing and usurping them.
Yes. And think of the people who were killed for 'acts of heresy" while following the original culture's intent and holiday.
-
1
-
-
On 10/30/2020 at 8:58 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
It's from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. A series of books by Douglas Adams. There were five books in the trilogy. (Think about that.) Much of the books was taken up by the question of Life, the Universe and Everything. The answer turned out to be 42. It then developed that for 42 to make any sense, it was necessary to understand the question. (42? Life, the Universe and everything is 42? **?) That, alas, was -- What is 8 times 6? Which is not 42. Which demonstrates the flaw in reality. Among other things, this is poking fun at philosophy and theology. It is an exercise in absurdity -- not correct math.
You may have seen the Bible, referenced as The Goatherder's Guide to the Galaxy. This is what that joke is base on.
Yes, but using correct math for a flaw in reality is really a joke, too. Flaws can't accept it...because it is flawed.
-
14 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
I think you missed the joke. 8 times 6? 42?
Not really. Interpretation is key. Not literally. (I did get it. But I guess mine missed?)
-
On 10/23/2020 at 7:06 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
Alas, what changes is the correct way to ask the ultimate question. What is 8 times 6?
The reason that nothing ever seems to make sense -- Is that in truth, the Universe is deeply flawed -- and nothing does make sense.
It works for me.
Ah, but that may not be the only question with the same outcome. 32 + 10?
-
And just as Jonathan says about there being "thousands of different varieties of Christian' and "nobody speaks for all of them", remember, too, that some voices are ever louder than others, but that does not make them right, nor the softer voices being wrong.
-
12 hours ago, Dan56 said:
If your referring to the Canaanites, there were only ten nations specifically marked for destruction (Deuteronomy 7:1), and they were killed for their sin.. Unfortunately, children are often victims of their parents poor choices. God told them to leave or they'd all die, and they chose the latter. So who was responsible for their deaths? Plus the children were predisposed to generational sin, and odds are that they'd continue in the evil ways of their parents. God only knows the specific reason, but I suspect it was similar to Noah's proclamation, a "Get on the boat or die" scenario?
Well. Dan, this answer only demonstrates that God intervenes regardless of so called free will. "Odds are", also means chance to do opposite. Children were then needlessly slaughtered. Also, would you listen to someone on the street that you think may be a crackpot, or the unquestionable voice of God? That may have been the difference with Noah. Thus, it also seems likely that the Canaanites heard the message the same way, by men, not God.
-
Welcome to the family. Yes, we truly are a family. We laugh, share, support and bicker with each other all the time. But always, we enjoy the freedom of our experiences and fellowship along our journey to learn whatever it is that we wish to understand about our belief systems and each other.
Again, welcome and blessings to you.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Dan56 said:
By your logic, its also safe to presume that Lincoln did not write the Gettysburg address either... You can't trust any historical records. There's no solid evidence that Cleopatra ever existed or that Pontius Pilate ever ordered anyone to be executed, etc. The 4 witnesses who recorded the crucifixion were persecuted or killed for their testimony, but none reneged on what they recorded. The fact is, people who lie are generally not willing to die in order to maintain a falsehood. That in itself gives credibility to the truth.
Your use of Lincoln does not support your argument. The address was handwritten on his way to the location the speech would be delivered. That draft was saved. Handwriting analysis could, and has, confirm he wrote it. As for the other historical figures, we'll never know, maybe.
-
29 minutes ago, imgnick said:
This is for clarification before I respond to other parts of the topic (a topic I LOVE and does not yet have a 100% answer for one side or another imo), but doesn't pre-determined/pre-destined sort of presuppose a determiner? And if there is not, on what basis is a lack of free will argued (the time travel is discussed next).
P.S. I am currently at work and cannot view the YouTube videos though I can guess their general content and will likely add to responses after viewing
What do you suppose it could be? The one premise is that we may not have true free will if all outcomes are already known. If that were true, then it might possibly be argued that time travel might likewise be unchanged, as all things led up to the possibility of said time travel. There are many other theories, of course.
What are your thoughts?
-
5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
Yes. I certainly have my own blind spots. We also have collective blind spots.
As Atheists, we have to be careful of our own biases. No. Religious people are not stupid. The Islamic world gave us Arabic numerals. Including the zero. Imagine trying to do math with the Roman numerals. Sir Isaac Newton, who invented calculus, so that he could work out planetary orbits, was renowned as a Protestant theologian. The astronomer who discovered that the Universe was expanding, was a Jesuit priest. He was employed by the Vatican. Plato and the ancient Greek Geometrists were outright mystics. In their quest to describe reality, they created geometry.
In like manner, religious minds are not crazy. The diagnostic manuals of mental health do not include religion. Religion can complicate mental illness, but religion per se, is not mental illness.
Religious people can be irritating and annoying. Even dangerous. But if we start throwing around words like "stupid" and "crazy", we do them a disservice. We also create a legitimate grievance for religious people.
You made no such statement. I just felt a need to throw that in.
Just so. Religion gave rise to science and reason, ironically. Then when it inspired people to deduce things logically, as science requires, they tried to suppress it as heresy. Why? Because it reduced their influence and power.
It is one thing to honor and worship a deity. Quite another to control the masses. You'd think an all powerful deity wouldn't need subordinate handlers to do that. Especially, as He, supposedly, promotes the ability of free will. Right?
-
On 7/31/2020 at 4:00 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
As the saying goes: "You can pick your friends. You can pick your nose. You can't pick your family."
JWs? Well, you could do worse. At least, they don't vote.
You can only assume. Some, like in other religions, may be in name only. And they may be compelled toward change after what we've been through with this administration.
-
On 7/29/2020 at 5:58 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
The more irrational a belief is -- the more a true believer will fight for it. This should not be so, but it is. That is why it's belief and not facts.
Yes. Weary is a good word. I used to enjoy arguing for Atheism and sanity. The wind has gone out of my sails. People who are not concerned with evidence, facts, reason or reality -- are not going to be persuaded by anything I have to say. So, I have to ask myself. Why am I arguing? I know it won't do any good. I don't enjoy it. Maybe it's time to just let it go and walk away. Somebody has to walk away. It might as well be me.
Especially true of those who simply will not accept the possibility of being wrong. Or won't accept defeat in a heated debate where all facts are presented.
No one likes to be the weaker person, but strength is greater in the one who can accept failure and learn from it to succeed later.
-
On 7/26/2020 at 1:38 PM, Dan56 said:
I wasn't arguing, just engaging in a friendly conversation. My simple point was that since we make decisions everyday, I believe we have free will. Whether or not God has foreknowledge of our decisions has no bearing on our choices. To me, that is reasonable and a reality. Knowing what someone will do or might do does not negate the fact that they are independently deciding for themselves. Perhaps your tired of arguing because there's no logical argument in response to that simple fact.
I agree that God is unchanging in character & principles, but He has had a change of heart in response to what people do and don't do. I believe God interacts with us in real time, and his actions are ever changing in accordance to what every individual does or fails to do. God made a judgement against Israel due to David's sin, but He relented when David repented.
God said, "Neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin" (Jeremiah 32:35). God searches the hearts of men because we have free will.
"The Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance". (2 Peter 3:9 ). We know that many will perish, so the will of the Father does not override the choices of the unrepentant.
You do understand that this is a contradiction. To stay in character and principle, "unchanging", there can be no change of heart, for that changes principles, and thus character. Further, to make such changes, He would not be the same as He was from the beginning.
-
20 hours ago, Dan56 said:
Probably a good idea.. Doesn't make much sense to argue about a book you don't even believe, let alone understand.
I disagree of course.. Why did God stop Abraham from sacrificing Isaac just in the nick of time? "And he said, "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Genesis 22:12). Doesn't sound like 'all knowing' to me?
Several times in Scripture God Himself said of certain events that they 'did not come into his mind' (Jeremiah 19:5; 32:35; 44:21). God did not know beforehand that men would become so wicked, it repented Him that He had made man and grieved Him at His heart (Gen. 6:5-7), God did not know whether it would take one or two or three signs to make Israel believe Him (Ex.4:1-12); or whether testing Israel would cause them to obey Him or not (Deut. 8:2, 16). God did not know that Israel would backslide as far as it did (Deut. 32:19-29; Isa. 59:15-19).
God searches the hearts to find whom He can bless (2 Chr. 16:9). He discovers deep things (Job. 12:22); He tries the hearts and reins of men so that He may know them (Ps. 7:9; 44:21; 139:1-6, 23-24; Jer. 17:10; 1 Chr. 28:9; Rom.8:27; 1 Cor. 2;10; Rev. 2:23), proving all men for the same reason (Ps. 17:3; 66:10; 81:7).
The 1,522 "if's" and the many hundreds of conditional requirements of God throughout Scripture are sufficient proof that God does not cause all acts and events by His own decrees, and are sufficient proof that He changes His mind and His own dealings with men as they conform or refuse to conform to His will.
God goes Himself, or He sends messengers throughout the whole of His vast creations to find out for Him what He wants to know, the same as the head of any other organization would be likely to do, so that plans may be made and actions can be taken accordingly. Examples of such agency constantly reporting to God can be found in all these passages (Gen. 18:21-22; Dan. 10:13-21; 11:1; 12:1; Zech. 1:7-11; 6:1-8; Matt. 18:10-11; Heb. 1:14; 2:2; Rev. 1:1; 7:1-3; 8:2-13; 9:1; 14:6-20; 15:1-8; 16:1-21; 18:21; 22:6, 8-9, 16).
The 6,468 commands in the Bible regulating man as to his part in the eternal plan of God, and setting forth his responsibility to God and man, the 1,260 promises and blessings, rewards or loss of rewards, the hundreds of warnings, curses, blessings and dealings of God on the basis of conformity to His will.
Such facts and many others make it clear that God does not know from all eternity what any one man will do, much less what different types and dispositions of men will do under various circumstances that are not yet present to deal with.
There is not one statement of Scripture in the entire Bible saying God knows or even would like to know all acts and particular events of all the vast creations of free moral agents from all eternity past; or that He has fixed decrees choosing and predestinating all thoughts, acts, and deeds of free wills from all eternity past to all eternity future.
God's plan will not fail and it is known from the beginning to the end and what He plans to bring to pass on Earth He has power to do, but concerning the free moral actions of free moral agents, He does not know from all eternity what they will do before they are in existence and are here to have a part in His plan. He does not know which ones will be saved and which ones will be lost. He has made a plan for all to be saved alike and all who conform to His plan are blessed with the predestined blessings. Those who willfully rebel will be cursed with the predestined punishments according to the plan. It is the plan that is known from beginning to the end, not the individual conformity to it by free moral agents. It is left up to each person to choose His own destiny. God wills all men to be saved but if man does not choose to be saved that is his responsibility (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; John 3:16; Rev. 22:17).God is infinite, but there's no definitive loop. You may be over thinking it. "Free will" and "Set in Stone" don't mix. Being made in the image of God, we make choices, we aren't programmed robots. For example; sin = death, but God intervened, so sin can be erased, therefore what would have been no longer needs to be. God chose not to control us, so our independent decisions are unknown, God is not omniscient in that respect. God doesn't want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9), but many will perish, God is not omnipotent in that respect. God knows the beginning from the end because He is the beginning and He will determine the end, but every choice we make in the interim isn't determined or known beforehand.
Of course, we will differ in opinion.
Abraham set to sacrifice his son was known by God, but not Abraham. That is why He stopped Him. He was indicating to Abraham to be safe in the knowledge from that point, (now), God knew of his devotion. So, it referred to Abraham's knowledge, not God's. So must all other circumstances be similarly be defined.
For God to have said that He was the same in the beginning as He is in the present, and will be in the future would be a lie if He didn't have knowledge of everything and had to learn of decisions as they were made. If He only knew the possible outcomes, He would have to change according to each, thus could not be the "same" at all times.
-
6 hours ago, Dan56 said:
Well, I don't see it that way at all. Sure, there are parameters too everything, but ultimately the game is not rigged, being confined to rules superimposed by a Creator doesn't eliminate individual choices. i.e; If your playing poker, the rules don't define the outcome, God may know the cards your dealt, but he doesn't know if you'll throw a card. There are countless biblical examples of where God did not know how people would react. Its not because God is not omniscient, but that we are created after His own image and were given sovereignty over our own destiny via our own choices. We are not programmed to react, therefore our actions constitute free will, even if they are foreknown.
No one is punished forever because they fail to be obedient to God, they perish because they reject God. Christ was planned from the beginning to answer for sin (Genesis 3:15), so there would be no condemnation for our shortcomings. Whereby, the drunk who falls to temptation can repent and need not perish.
True, A&E did not know evil, but disobedience is a choice, and disobedience to God is sin (sin = evil). "Surely thou shalt die" was the 'or else', but despite the warning, they plowed ahead and chose death. But inequity aside, a Savior was promised, who bore our inequities, and those who receive him are alive in Christ.
Actually, he does. We don't.
Part of the definition of being an "all knowing" God, means just that.
-
On 7/20/2020 at 8:56 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
I started this thread with an analysis of the properties of time. Including duration and sequence. Do you have anything to add?
To be fair, Jonathan, the thread topic is on free will. We brought in the time tangent as an influence aspect of free will. Dan's last response did correlate the two.
-
1 minute ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
Maybe. That is a commonly held opinion of the nature of time. There are other ideas on the subject.
I'm working with a different idea. I think that if I go back into the past -- I become part of the past. Things work out as they already have -- because it has already happened.
In any event, that was only a thought experiment. In reality, I'm fairly certain that travel into the past is not possible. Into the future, yes. But not the past.
But if there is no future, you would shoot only into a void, or cease to exist, yourself. That hardly seems fun.
-
2 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
I have been watching the You Tube videos on the physics of time. I'm out of my depth.
My questions remain the same. Does the future already exist, in the same way that the past exists? If the future does exist -- and it is unchanging -- that seems to kill free will. It would still leave the illusion of free will.
If the past exists, but the future does not exist -- yet -- that would have different implications.
I'm only raising the questions. I don't know the answers.
I can't say things for certainty, either. I can question everything, and never know the answers. But it's the questions that make things interesting enough to seek the answers. Otherwise, we would truly never get anywhere with anything.
Why should we look at the past, present, and future as a string between two trees? A beginning, middle, and end. Why not, as I posed in my last response, all of them existing at once with a "veil" to obscure any interaction or catastrophic doom? Would kind of explain 'ghosts" that interact with us now. Occasionally, the "veil" is thin enough to communicate through.
-
On 7/18/2020 at 12:23 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
This is a thought experiment. That's all it is.
I get into my time machine and go back twenty years. Everybody that I encounter will think that they have free will. I know that they don't. The past will continue as it always has.
I return to my starting point in time. Now, I go twenty years into my future. Everybody that I encounter thinks that they have free will.
Maybe nobody has free will. Maybe free will is an illusion. I'm not saying that this is the case. I'm saying that nobody really knows. Well -- I don't know.
I suspect it comes down to a question. Does the future already exist, in the same way that the past exists? I don't know.
In the meantime, there is the pragmatic approach. I choose to live as though I have free will. Even if it is an illusion.
As for the "time machine" proposal, once you use it, there can be no return to your starting point. You altered the path by going back. And the past. as you knew it could change, as well, as you added an element that was previously missing...you. But that's going off in a different subject.
Free will is only an illusion to those who don't believe we can make choices, or that a predetermined destiny awaits. Which does take much of the fun out of living and enjoying the experience it gives.
Could it not be possible that all "universes" align together at the same moment, but only those associated to the choices we make reveal themselves at the moment of the decision? Possibly taking turns with our perception while we play eenie meenie mynee moe?
-
On 7/18/2020 at 12:36 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
You are using "duration" in a different sense than I am. I am not talking about patience. Or endurance. I'm talking about the passing of time. Without "duration", there is no existence. It would stop.
It could still apply. Patience would not take notice of a lot of time, yet impatience would. In essence, there already is no time, yet human emotion can not equate life without it.
Now, if you apply it in terms of growth, what you say is very true.
-
1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
The understanding of time is a human invention. The existence of time is objective. Measurement is another matter. Time gives us duration. Time gives us sequence. Time gives us causality. Without time, everything happens in the same moment.
Since time is part of space/time, we need to consider the properties of space. Without space, no division or separation of anything is possible. No separation or division at all. Everything is a single point.
So, space/time is why existence is more than a single moment and a single point.
What happens in a singularity? Space collapses. Time slows to a stop.
Notice, we got here without Scripture.
I kind of differ here. In place of time, I'd say patience gives us duration. (Less patience, more adrenaline for faster response, which renders short term benefits, but sacrifices long term benefits. More patience, less adrenaline, longer response lapse.) Action or inaction gives us sequence and causality. Each is activated by human emotion or perception. As far as we are aware not everything is happening at the same moment. As far as perception goes, maybe it does, but our minds can grasp only so much at once. (Which might also be an argument for the existence of spirits or ghosts, no?)
Yes, we existed for a very long time before Scripture came to be, and probably would be just as troubled had it not been written. We will never know for sure, now.
-
50 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
The moment we say that God knows everything; that's the end of God's free will.
Christian's like to say that "God" has a plan. Plans are for creatures under time. There is no planning for someone outside of time.
Someone outside of time also can't be surprised. Or disappointed.
Sentience itself might be a problem. How do you put one thought in front of another, without sequence or duration?
This is what comes of creating doctrine without understanding.
Which brings us back to my physics question. If the past is unchanging, how do we know the future can be changed? I don't know.
The past is unchanging because what was done can not be undone. When you burn your hand, you can not unburn it. It must heal. The future is ever changing. Every thought or decision changes the course of current reality. Doing nothing sets a path in one direction, but the instant an action is thought or performed, the direction is diverted, because there is a change from doing nothing. (Kind of like stepping forward, as opposed to standing still, or sidestepping leads us to a different position.) We can not see these paths, because we are unaware, unable, or fail to see multiple dimensions of any timeline.
We do not know the future can be changed, really, because we don't know what happens in the future with any certainty. We can only assume, just as we can only hypothesize.
-
4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
Since God knows everything, it follows that God knows the future. That includes everything that God will ever think, do or change. That includes every change of mind that God will ever have, so it's not really a change of mind. From this, it follows that God lacks free will.
Reasonable deductive thinking. Of course, He would have considered that, as well.
-
4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
I raised a physics question about the nature of time. Any takers?
Time is really a purely human concept of measure. We schedule virtually every aspect of our lives with it, even without thinking about it, as we have become conditioned to do it.
Nature, meanwhile, goes about it's business unhindered by it. Driven purely by the needs of survival to do what it needs to as it needs to.
As for a God, since He isn't, or they aren't, human. The entity isn't defined by it. Thus, is as it was in the beginning, as it is presently, and will be tomorrow. The presence doesn't really exists in "time", as we know it.
That's somewhat of a hypothesis that I have an ongoing development in my mind. Still exploring the rough draft of it, you might say.
responsibility and morality
in Philosophy & Theory
Posted
I don't necessarily agree to the word "strong", as much as "open minded" or "understanding" to replace it in that statement. Sometimes the bonding of two weak souls can make each other stronger just through support of each other by mutual understanding.