This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Questions for a Catholic
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Free will =/= self-awareness.
But you do think they have will. Why is it not free?
What you do, is true in all eternity, yes. That's a far cry from predestination.
I disagree. Predestination, by definition, is simply that the future is fixed and true, at all points through time. The causal relationship between the event and a God or a Man isn't specified (though it's often implied that it is God-determined, but I would still call that predeterminism, a specific subset of predestination).
I'm not saying that God has necessarily forced us down a path of banality, and that we have no conscious control over what we do. I'm just saying that since God knows what will happen (i.e. the universe is predestined, but not necessarily directly influenced by God), then you can't divert from your predestined path, and therefore have no true freedom.
Post by
ASHelmy
This comment astounds me. Do you think dogs are too stupid to have self-awareness or is this another crazy dogma the church has?
Free will =/= self-awareness.
Please stop to think about your posts before posting them.
Your previous post made no sense, I want to know what you mean. You have still not answered the question.
God created us.
Assertion without evidence.
God put us in the universe.
Assertion without evidence.
Therefore the universe in some way is for us.
Conclusion based on unfounded assertions.
The Flying spaghetti monster created us.
The Flying spaghetti monster put us in the universe.
Therefore the universe in some way is for us. Or at least pirates.
Oh lookie, and now he pulls of the amazing FSM stunt! How amazing! And expected.
Post by
Squishalot
Oh lookie, and now he pulls of the amazing FSM stunt! How amazing! And expected.
FSM is a legitimate 'stunt', when raised correctly. The corollary is that Christianity is a legimitate 'stunt' challenge to FSM, when raised correctly.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Hyper - in view of the comments from DoctorLore, and generally, as you would well know, what do you think of this article?
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-plague-of-atheists-has-descended-and-catholics-are-the-target-20091103-hv52.html
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Predestination, by definition, is simply that the future is fixed and true,
at all points through time.
But God is outside of time! Right now, the next hour is not fixed. To God, outside of time, it already
is
, but at any given time nothing in the future is fixed.
I'm not saying that God has necessarily forced us down a path of banality, and that we have no conscious control over what we do. I'm just saying that since God knows what will happen (i.e. the universe is predestined, but not necessarily directly influenced by God), then you can't divert from your predestined path, and therefore have no true freedom.
Look at the word:
Pre
destination. Pre = before, prior. God's knowledge is not before, nor is it after, it
is
.
Post by
ASHelmy
Oh lookie, and now he pulls of the amazing FSM stunt! How amazing! And expected.
FSM is a legitimate 'stunt', when raised correctly. The corollary is that Christianity is a legimitate 'stunt' challenge to FSM, when raised correctly.
Yes, ok, I agree. But when it's used to insult it's just old and boring. Also, very mature, doctorlore. You have a nice day being an angry jerk to us intellectual inferiors and our silly, crazy God.
Edit: Also, personal attack against my person. Oh damn, those immature insults are really going to hurt me. Please try to go easy on me. I
beg
of you. Any who, for what it's worth, I apologize, I am having a rough day and the
last
thing I needed was someone who made me feel worse about my beliefs. Good night.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Hyper - in view of the comments from DoctorLore, and generally, as you would well know, what do you think of this article?
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-plague-of-atheists-has-descended-and-catholics-are-the-target-20091103-hv52.html
Well, I know 2 guys personally whom I would classify as the article did. I'm not one to judge, but it seems like they feel insecure with their 'beliefs' (or lack thereof), and the second anyone says they believe in something they pounce, yet they get all defensive when I saying anything about them.
And it is true that the Catholic Church is the most easily attacked because we actually have a written, codified doctrine, unlike most other Christian denominations.
I don't think a plague is even close to the right term though.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Not to mention claiming condoms cause AIDS
At least we don't misquote people like you are doing right here.
You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem.
Condoms promote sexual promiscuity.
Sexual promiscuity increases the problem of AIDS.
Therefore condoms promote the increase the problem of AIDS.
Post by
Squishalot
Hyper - in view of the comments from DoctorLore, and generally, as you would well know, what do you think of this article?
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-plague-of-atheists-has-descended-and-catholics-are-the-target-20091103-hv52.html
Well, I know 2 guys personally whom I would classify as the article did. I'm not one to judge, but it seems like they feel insecure with their 'beliefs' (or lack thereof), and the second anyone says they believe in something they pounce, yet they get all defensive when I saying anything about them.
And it is true that the Catholic Church is the most easily attacked because we actually have a written, codified doctrine, unlike most other Christian denominations.
I don't think a plague is even close to the right term though.
Maybe it was just how I read the article, but while I acknowledge that there are a number of very hostile athiests out there, it's very hypocritical to write an article like that and publish it in a national newspaper, in my opinion.
Anyway.
But God is outside of time! Right now, the next hour is not fixed. To God, outside of time, it already is, but at any given time nothing in the future is fixed.
To us, to God, does it matter? Can you reasonably say that it's ok for us to appear to have free will, but God knows that it's not free? That's the issue here, after all. God is telling us that we have free will, when He knows what's going to happen, implying that he knows it's not really 'free', since we're predestined (from his perspective) to do what we will do.
God's perspective vs our perspective doesn't really matter in this instance. If you do think it matters, then it must be the case that God is lying to use about having free will, since he knows otherwise.
Post by
Squishalot
Condoms promote sexual promiscuity.
Sexual promiscuity increases the problem of AIDS.
Therefore condoms promote the increase the problem of AIDS.
Seatbelts promote driving activity.
Driving activity increases the road toll.
Therefore, seatbelts promote the increase of the road toll.
The flaw in the argument, of course, is that it doesn't take into account the reduction in the road toll from the benefit of seatbelts. Likewise with AIDS. But I don't like playing religious politics, so I'll leave it there.
(And damn, why'd this thread get so busy? ><)
Edit 2: In case it wasn't obvious enough, simply remove 'predestined' from prior arguments and replace with 'destined' from an 'outside of time' perspective. That's just arguing over words.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Not to mention claiming condoms cause AIDS
At least we don't misquote people like you are doing right here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUuUxe8mfCM
"a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms,
which even aggravates the problems
".
-Pope Benedict XVI, Tuesday 17th Mar 2009
Aggravate and cause are two separate things. See Hyper's argument above.
And with all due respect, you're making athiests look bad.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
But God is outside of time! Right now, the next hour is not fixed. To God, outside of time, it already is, but at any given time nothing in the future is fixed.
To us, to God, does it matter? Can you reasonably say that it's ok for us to appear to have free will, but God knows that it's not free? That's the issue here, after all. God is telling us that we have free will, when He knows what's going to happen, implying that he knows it's not really 'free', since we're predestined (from his perspective) to do what we will do.
God's perspective vs our perspective doesn't really matter in this instance. If you do think it matters, then it must be the case that God is lying to use about having free will, since he knows otherwise.
I honestly can't explain it any better than I have.
Perspective does matter because the knowledge in question exists outside of time.
Consider this. Assume there is free will, I live my life, then I die and enter eternity. I am in eternity and I know the choices I made. This knowledge exists in eternity, so does it therefore limit the free choices I made? That something is known in eternity has no bearing on the freedom of choosing it. God knew he himself was going to die for us from all eternity...are you going to derive from that, that his choice on earth to die was not free?
Eternity =/= the future.
I can point you to
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/#1
which has arguments made throughout the centuries. But it's pretty full of philosophical terms and whatnot.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Adverts for alcahol promote binge drinking.
Binge drinking increases the problem of street crime.
Therefore adverts for alcahol increase the problem of street crime.
If both those premises are true, then yes that is true.
Abstinence does not work.
The virus has now mutated to teleport from body to body I guess?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Condoms promote sexual promiscuity.
Sexual promiscuity increases the problem of AIDS.
Therefore condoms promote the increase the problem of AIDS.
Seatbelts promote driving activity.
Driving activity increases the road toll.
Therefore, seatbelts promote the increase of the road toll.
The flaw in the argument, of course, is that it doesn't take into account the reduction in the road toll from the benefit of seatbelts. Likewise with AIDS. But I don't like playing religious politics, so I'll leave it there..
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622864/pdf/15356939.pdf
People are so misinformed about condoms.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.