For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Whist the same source gives contrary results it is time to question the source, otherwise you are just blowing hot air.Greatest I am wrote:I put my conclusions out here.
Some will agree some not.
Regards
DL
Those who do not show their level of intelligence.chaz wyman wrote:Whist the same source gives contrary results it is time to question the source, otherwise you are just blowing hot air.Greatest I am wrote:I put my conclusions out here.
Some will agree some not.
Regards
DL
I do not see a queue of people waiting to agree with you.
Clearly you have a hotline to truth, whereas theologians for millennia are just too stupid to know where in the bible to cherry pick the right passages.Greatest I am wrote:Those who do not show their level of intelligence.chaz wyman wrote:Whist the same source gives contrary results it is time to question the source, otherwise you are just blowing hot air.Greatest I am wrote:I put my conclusions out here.
Some will agree some not.
Regards
DL
I do not see a queue of people waiting to agree with you.
Regards
DL
How amusing. I think it is you that needs to get a life!Greatest I am wrote:Get a life.
Regards
DL
I was aware of that when I wrote it.bobevenson wrote:OK, I guess I'll be the first to comment on the redundant title of this thread. Please name me any iniquity that is not evil.
I think this has been answered millions of times already...Greatest I am wrote:I cannot name any iniquity that is good and only added the word evil because believers say that God only creates good things.
bravox wrote:I think this has been answered millions of times already...Greatest I am wrote:I cannot name any iniquity that is good and only added the word evil because believers say that God only creates good things.
How would God give man free will without allowing for evil? How can people be free to choose if they are not free to make wrong choices?
However the same theologians make the same mistake that to give man free will, is de facto a limitation of god's omnipotence.
Such a god cannot intervene to alter the course of events, so is not all powerful. Noting the 'having your cake and eating it', some theologians such as Calvin demand the doctrine of predetermination.
Some could say that God is not all-powerful given that He is not powerful enough to solve the above conundrum. But what if God is already solving it, by teaching man to choose wisely? It may be taking time, but so did creation.
If god is teaching each man to choose widely then he is altering free will. If god is all powerful then he has to have know who will and how will not heed that teaching even before they were born, and thus in the act of creation knew to whom and whom not he had bestowed salvation.
I'd like to make a comment on cherry picking from scripture: don't we do the same with science? We accept or discard theories based on how they agree or disagree with other theories. The goal of science is to have a body of theories that are in full harmony with each other (we're not there yet).
No, we do not. We select what works and has utility. You have not made a case how this related to the above. ~The book of nature is less forgiving of contradiction.
There is no reason not to cherry pick from the Bible unless you think it is the word of God. Seen as man's attempt to understand God, it is an excelent source of thought.
You might as well choose any book, with far better results. Most are for less contradictory.
chaz wyman wrote:However the same theologians make the same mistake that to give man free will, is de facto a limitation of god's omnipotence.
If god is teaching each man to choose widely then he is altering free will.
It is obvious to anyone that our understanding of God is not perfect. Or, rather, as an atheist would put it, theology as a whole doesn't make any sense.If god is all powerful then he has to have know who will and how will not heed that teaching even before they were born, and thus in the act of creation knew to whom and whom not he had bestowed salvation.
bravox wrote:chaz wyman wrote:However the same theologians make the same mistake that to give man free will, is de facto a limitation of god's omnipotence.If god is teaching each man to choose widely then he is altering free will.It is obvious to anyone that our understanding of God is not perfect. Or, rather, as an atheist would put it, theology as a whole doesn't make any sense.If god is all powerful then he has to have know who will and how will not heed that teaching even before they were born, and thus in the act of creation knew to whom and whom not he had bestowed salvation.
I will not dispute that.
I will only add that our understanding of nature is not perfect either. In fact, it doesn't make any sense at all. It is useful, practical, pragmatic, but it completely lacks any foundation. It's turtles all the way.
No one is saying that our understanding of nature is perfect, but that does not support the proposition that god is in any way meaningful.
There is one fact though, that atheism conveniently sweeps under the rug: we can't possibly find justification for moral behaviour in nature.
Yes we can.
Morality is either a fiction in our minds, in which case we are free to dismiss it, or some form of supernatural law of the universe we obey without knowing its origin.
Morality is a human artifact, but the underlying reasons that such a move to behave ethically is easily understood in terms of nature.
Just because some evolutionists lack the imagination does not mean that morality has to come from god - which does not account for the facts of morality in any way.
Problem is, it is not acceptable to prove that morality is an illusion. No one can be compelled, by any rational argument, to deny the notion of good and evil. And if you accept that, the logical consequence is that goodness was defined even before we were created, that it is an attribute of reality itself.
Good is that which pleaseth man, evil that which pleaseth him not.
One man's evil is the good of another.
These are not facts of nature but facts of culture, and human contingency.
How we sort out the implications of that intellectual choice is really up to our mental capacity. The fact itself cannot be changed.
Eh? What "FACT" is it that you claim is unchangeable, exactly?
That is what Adolf Hitler claimed. And we all know where that line of thinking ends up.chaz wyman wrote:Morality is a human artifact
Godwinned.bravox wrote:That is what Adolf Hitler claimed. And we all know where that line of thinking ends up.chaz wyman wrote:Morality is a human artifact
Hitler has nothing to do with it. The argument is that, even if we prove we have no basis to behave morally, we will still do.John wrote:If your only argument against the argument that morality is culturally constructed is saying Hitler believed it
I have thought about it more than you can imagine, and I realized that we won't believe any possible theory about morality, except one that implies we can't possibly escape punishment if we act immorally. Oh, by the way, such a theory already exists.it suggests you haven't thought about it enough as it's a complex question that lacks consensus.