The Democrat Party Hates America

[seeds]

If that were so, then God would have to be limited by time.

Not time, free will. God can, with a precision the Swiss would envy, I'm sure, tell us exactly when Sol will nova, or collapse in on itself, or...

What He can't do, or mebbe chooses not to do, is tell you, as fact, what you'll do or why you'll do it. Your interior is a mystery to God. That's how He made you to be.

Yes, henry!

That's the only way that living forever in the higher context of reality (often referred to as "heaven") could be "perfect" for everyone. For we all must be absolutely "equal"* to one another,...

...and that includes being equal to God.

*(Of course, we are all equal to one another right now. However, these temporary corporeal circumstances sometimes obscure that fact.)

People like IC simply do not understand what being "...created in the image of God..." really means.

Furthermore, anyone who thinks that a living, incorporeal Entity who is capable of creating more than a hundred billion galaxies of suns and planets out of the living fabric of its own personal being,...

...which, in turn, functions as the physiological setting and means by which the Entity awakens new souls - just like itself - into existence,...

...again, anyone who thinks that such a Being is not worthy of the title of "God," simply because it doesn't live up to all of the various "Omni" powers* that clueless humans think that their vision of a "God" must possess in order to qualify for that title...

...is being highly unreasonable.

*For example, is God supposed to be "Omnisciently" aware of the current [and future] position or trajectory of every sub-atomic particle in the entire universe?

Just imagine how incredibly boring and tedious that would be.

And how far into the future are we talking about? A thousand years? A million years? Forever? No one seems to give much thought to this issue.

Or how about realizing that when it comes to the idea of God not being limited to time; yes, that's true, but only in the sense that God is not affected - like us - by time issues that arise due to the limiting speed of light here within the inner workings of the universe.

In other words, because it is probable that the universe is the literal "MIND" of God,...

...then the distant galaxies of the universe that would take us corporeal beings billions of years of time to reach traveling at the speed of light, could be reached by God - "instantly" - at the "speed of thought."

So, in that particular sense, God is not limited to time.

However, that doesn't mean that God could be even remotely cognizant of the "precise status" of all future events involving the random decisions being made by what amounts to a near infinite "herd of cats."

And, again, how far into the future are we talking about?

The point is that theists need to scale back their expectations of the abilities of the Creator of this universe.

Indeed, if fanatical theists would take a more logical approach to the ontological status of God, then perhaps there would be less fanatical atheists.
_______

[mickthinks]

Officials beat and shocked Hernández Rojas with a Taser while they were deporting him to Mexico through the San Diego border in May 2010. He was hospitalized and died a couple of days later.

https://truthout.org/articles/intl-huma ... ed-killed/

It's not cruelty. It's called "justice."

Manny doesn’t see the cruelty.

[Ben JS]

Officials beat and shocked Hernández Rojas with a Taser while they were deporting him to Mexico through the San Diego border in May 2010. He was hospitalized and died a couple of days later.

https://truthout.org/articles/intl-huma ... ed-killed/

It's not cruelty. It's called "justice."

Manny doesn’t see the cruelty.

That justice was put into quotes is telling of that as a description of what transpired.
Perhaps it wasn't 'quite' just.

[FlashDangerpants]

Officials beat and shocked Hernández Rojas with a Taser while they were deporting him to Mexico through the San Diego border in May 2010. He was hospitalized and died a couple of days later.

https://truthout.org/articles/intl-huma ... ed-killed/

It's not cruelty. It's called "justice."

Manny doesn’t see the cruelty.

It's more that he doesn't experience the empathy.

[seeds]

It's not cruelty. It's called "justice."

Manny doesn’t see the cruelty.

It's more that he doesn't experience the empathy.

Right.

I mean,...

...what can you expect of a person who is already emotionally okay with the alleged fact that at some moment in the future there will exist untold billions of human souls (even the souls of infants and toddlers) writhing in agony from the relentless eternal torture they will receive for not accepting Jesus as their personal savior,...

...while he (IC) is getting foot rubs and sips mint juleps in some heavenly realm?

For according to IC, that too is...

"...not cruelty. It's called "justice"..."

_______

[mickthinks]

Here’s a video detailing how the Democratic Party hates America:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJVCwJfOBS3/

[Walker]

Apparently, Determinism is bound to the cause and effect of natural law, while Fatalism is not so bound. Since past performance does not guarantee future results, investing in the future is also influenced by the unknowns inherent to Fatalism.

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

Fatalism is the thesis that all events (or in some versions, at least some events) are destined to occur no matter what we do. The source of the guarantee that those events will happen is located in the will of the gods, or their divine foreknowledge, or some intrinsic teleological aspect of the universe, rather than in the unfolding of events under the sway of natural laws or cause-effect relations. Fatalism is therefore clearly separable from determinism, at least to the extent that one can disentangle mystical forces and gods’ wills and foreknowledge (about specific matters) from the notion of natural/causal law. Not every metaphysical picture makes this disentanglement possible, of course. But as a general matter, we can imagine that certain things are fated to happen, without this being the result of deterministic natural laws alone; and we can imagine the world being governed by deterministic laws, without anything at all being fated to occur (perhaps because there are no gods, nor mystical/teleological forces deserving the titles fate or destiny, and in particular no intentional determination of the “initial conditions” of the world). In a looser sense, however, it is true that under the assumption of determinism, one might say that given the way things have gone in the past, all future events that will in fact happen are already destined to occur.

*

To say that fatalism does not rely on natural laws and causation, assumes that human perspective knows all there is to know about natural law and causation, yet history and the never-ending science-quests suggest not.

[Belinda]

Apparently, Determinism is bound to the cause and effect of natural law, while Fatalism is not so bound. Since past performance does not guarantee future results, investing in the future is also influenced by the unknowns inherent to Fatalism.

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

Fatalism is the thesis that all events (or in some versions, at least some events) are destined to occur no matter what we do. The source of the guarantee that those events will happen is located in the will of the gods, or their divine foreknowledge, or some intrinsic teleological aspect of the universe, rather than in the unfolding of events under the sway of natural laws or cause-effect relations. Fatalism is therefore clearly separable from determinism, at least to the extent that one can disentangle mystical forces and gods’ wills and foreknowledge (about specific matters) from the notion of natural/causal law. Not every metaphysical picture makes this disentanglement possible, of course. But as a general matter, we can imagine that certain things are fated to happen, without this being the result of deterministic natural laws alone; and we can imagine the world being governed by deterministic laws, without anything at all being fated to occur (perhaps because there are no gods, nor mystical/teleological forces deserving the titles fate or destiny, and in particular no intentional determination of the “initial conditions” of the world). In a looser sense, however, it is true that under the assumption of determinism, one might say that given the way things have gone in the past, all future events that will in fact happen are already destined to occur.

*

To say that fatalism does not rely on natural laws and causation, assumes that human perspective knows all there is to know about natural law and causation, yet history and the never-ending science-quests suggest not.

The Fates know the future: we do NOT know. the future, Plain determinists do NOT know the future.
We can know a little about natural laws and causation. However the Fates are supernatural not natural, and the Fates are all-powerful over our lives and must be propitiated if we are to be safe.

Fatalism is the belief that events are predetermined and unavoidable, often attributed to fate or destiny. The Fates, in Greek mythology, are three powerful goddesses who control the destinies of mortals and are a manifestation of this fatalistic worldview.

[Ben JS]

From: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/deter ... 26427/5409

While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, fatalism, determinism, and predeterminism are distinct, as each emphasizes a different aspect of the futility of human will or the foreordination of destiny. However, all these doctrines share common ground.

Determinists generally agree that human actions affect the future but that human action is itself determined by a causal chain of prior events. Their view does not accentuate a “submission” to fate or destiny, whereas fatalists stress an acceptance of future events as inevitable. Determinists believe the future is fixed specifically due to causality; fatalists and predeterminists believe that some or all aspects of the future are inescapable but, for fatalists, not necessarily due to causality.

Fatalism is a looser term than determinism. The presence of historical “indeterminisms” or chances, i.e. events that could not be predicted by sole knowledge of other events, is an idea still compatible with fatalism. Necessity (such as a law of nature) will happen just as inevitably as a chance—both can be imagined as sovereign. This idea has roots in Aristotle’s work, “De interpretatione”.

Theological fatalism is the thesis that infallible foreknowledge of a human act makes the act necessary and hence unfree. If there is a being who knows the entire future infallibly, then no human act is free. The early Islamic philosopher, Al Farabi, makes the case that if God does in fact know all human actions and choices, then Aristotle’s original solution to this dilemma stands.

Compatibilism emerges as a response to a problem posed by causal determinism. But what problem is that? Well, suppose, as the thesis of causal determinism tells us, that everything that occurs is the inevitable result of the laws of nature and the state of the world in the distant past. If this is the case, then everything human agents do flows from the laws of nature and the way the world was in the distant past. But if what we do is simply the consequence of the laws of nature and the state of the world in the distant past—then we cannot do anything other than what we ultimately do. Nor are we in any meaningful sense the ultimate causal source of our actions, since they have their causal origins in the laws of nature and the state of the world long ago. Determinism therefore seems to prevent human agents from having the freedom to do otherwise, and it also seems to prevent them from being the sources of their actions. If either of these is true, then it’s doubtful that human agents are free or responsible for their actions in any meaningful sense.

[&]

To my understanding, determinism is fatalistic but emphasizes that it’s due to the chain of causality, as opposed to possibility of a supernatural agent for example that demands a result [in defiance of natural laws].

I’m not opposed to describing my position as fatalistic to an extent.

[Belinda]

From: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/deter ... 26427/5409

While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, fatalism, determinism, and predeterminism are distinct, as each emphasizes a different aspect of the futility of human will or the foreordination of destiny. However, all these doctrines share common ground.

Determinists generally agree that human actions affect the future but that human action is itself determined by a causal chain of prior events. Their view does not accentuate a “submission” to fate or destiny, whereas fatalists stress an acceptance of future events as inevitable. Determinists believe the future is fixed specifically due to causality; fatalists and predeterminists believe that some or all aspects of the future are inescapable but, for fatalists, not necessarily due to causality.

Fatalism is a looser term than determinism. The presence of historical “indeterminisms” or chances, i.e. events that could not be predicted by sole knowledge of other events, is an idea still compatible with fatalism. Necessity (such as a law of nature) will happen just as inevitably as a chance—both can be imagined as sovereign. This idea has roots in Aristotle’s work, “De interpretatione”.

Theological fatalism is the thesis that infallible foreknowledge of a human act makes the act necessary and hence unfree. If there is a being who knows the entire future infallibly, then no human act is free. The early Islamic philosopher, Al Farabi, makes the case that if God does in fact know all human actions and choices, then Aristotle’s original solution to this dilemma stands.

Compatibilism emerges as a response to a problem posed by causal determinism. But what problem is that? Well, suppose, as the thesis of causal determinism tells us, that everything that occurs is the inevitable result of the laws of nature and the state of the world in the distant past. If this is the case, then everything human agents do flows from the laws of nature and the way the world was in the distant past. But if what we do is simply the consequence of the laws of nature and the state of the world in the distant past—then we cannot do anything other than what we ultimately do. Nor are we in any meaningful sense the ultimate causal source of our actions, since they have their causal origins in the laws of nature and the state of the world long ago. Determinism therefore seems to prevent human agents from having the freedom to do otherwise, and it also seems to prevent them from being the sources of their actions. If either of these is true, then it’s doubtful that human agents are free or responsible for their actions in any meaningful sense.

[&]

To my understanding, determinism is fatalistic but emphasizes that it’s due to the chain of causality, as opposed to possibility of a supernatural agent for example that demands a result [in defiance of natural laws].

I’m not opposed to describing my position as fatalistic to an extent.

But a fatalist implies prediction , whereas a determinist does not imply prediction.

[Immanuel Can]

To say that fatalism does not rely on natural laws and causation, assumes that human perspective knows all there is to know about natural law and causation, yet history and the never-ending science-quests suggest not.

The real issue is very simple: is human volition a cause?

Both sides believe in causality. The Determinists just exclude humans -- even themselves -- from their thinking.

Occam would be spinning in his grave.

[Immanuel Can]

But a fatalist implies prediction , whereas a determinist does not imply prediction.

Both imply a kind of prediction. Both predict that irresistible forces will predetermine what happens. Fatalists call it "fate," and Determinists call it "physics," or something similar to that (they can say neurochemicals, a Calvinist god, whatever). But both are predicting and assuming that these irresistlble forces have already set whatever will happen, and whatever can happen.

[Belinda]

But a fatalist implies prediction , whereas a determinist does not imply prediction.

Both imply a kind of prediction. Both predict that irresistible forces will predetermine what happens. Fatalists call it "fate," and Determinists call it "physics," or something similar to that (they can say neurochemicals, a Calvinist god, whatever). But both are predicting and assuming that these irresistlble forces have already set whatever will happen, and whatever can happen.

That is incorrect, Immanuel. Determinists claim that what happened necessarily happened (note the past tense). If a determinist believes in God then he will believe that God knows the future; the determinist does not claim human beings know the future.

A fatalist is a determinist who claims the future is determined by fate, not by God. I know people often get them mixed up, but please do yourself a favour and learn better than the popular vague idea. Fatalism is a superstition. If one is a fatalist then one believes there is nothing God can do to avert what the future holds.

I am aware that lots of believers in God are not determinists, yet it is possible to be a religious determinist. It is impossible to be a religious fatalist.

[Walker]

To say that fatalism does not rely on natural laws and causation, assumes that human perspective knows all there is to know about natural law and causation, yet history and the never-ending science-quests suggest not.

The real issue is very simple: is human volition a cause?

Both sides believe in causality. The Determinists just exclude humans -- even themselves -- from their thinking.

Occam would be spinning in his grave.

If human volition is considered to be part of natural law and causation, then yes, human volition is a cause. In that case, human involvement is a natural cause, and because of that it is subject to natural law, and not merely subject to human comprehension of natural law. Fatalism is bound to neither natural law nor human understanding of natural law, and from I gather, neither is God who can cause miracles that natural law and causation cannot explain, so bound (to the best of man's knowledge).

Genesis 8:20.
What did Noah take of each clean beast? Perhaps, DNA, in ways unknown to man? Just a thought.

[Immanuel Can]

But a fatalist implies prediction , whereas a determinist does not imply prediction.

Both imply a kind of prediction. Both predict that irresistible forces will predetermine what happens. Fatalists call it "fate," and Determinists call it "physics," or something similar to that (they can say neurochemicals, a Calvinist god, whatever). But both are predicting and assuming that these irresistlble forces have already set whatever will happen, and whatever can happen.

That is incorrect, Immanuel.

No, it's correct.

The doctrine that what will be will be, or that human action has no influence on events. (Oxford) Note: "will be," not "was."

the determinist does not claim human beings know the future.

NOBODY claims human beings know the future in specific.

Now, Determinists would have to claim that, in principle (not in practice, of course) an entity COULD predict the future, if such an entity had something like a supercomputer capable of processing all causes active in the universe, along with all relevant facts about the objects upon which they are acting...that is, that every event is nothing but the inevitable result of prior forces. And this does, indeed, entail that human volition is not included under the category of things that can be "causes," according to Determinist thinking...if it could, then such events would no longer be "predetermined".

And it matters not at all, to this, whether the "forces" in question are said to be "the Fates," or fate, or physics and chemistry, or quantum actions, or God Himself. They're all forms of Determinism.