 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > free will - what is it | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/29/2003 11:55 AM (GMT -6) |   | RD, I am truly not setting a trap, just wanting to be sure that we agree on a concept before building a conversation on it.
It seems that you are trying to show that the creation of the world is not logically necessary but rather is decreed. I agree. My question is actually quite simple. Since we agree that the world is not logically necessary, and you seem clear about not wanting to limit God's ability to create and act in any given way, I cannot see how or why you would object to affirming libertarian freedom for God. Yet it is precisely here that you feel as though I am laying a trap.
I wonder if it is simply the case that the idea of accepting libertarian freedom--in any form at any level--offends or threatens some other element of your system. Is this why it feels like a trap? I don't intend to twist or reverse or do anything else 'trap-like'. I simply wonder how you can affirm God's aseity (this means God's radical independence from the world and implies/includes God's freedom to create or not create it) and still insist that libertarian freedom itself is incoherent. If God has it, it is not incoherent. If there is any "trap," I guess that would be it. This is true of perfection and holiness as well. God has these things. All affirm this. Yet none understand fully what that affirmation entails.
As far as the moral delimma with regard to God, the two classically opposing theological positions on this are realism and nominalism. Realism affirms that God IS the good and so God always does the good as a self-expression. Nominalism affirms that God is not bound by any principle or power over God, "good" would be a principle like this and so God is above such distinctions.
I tend to relativize our human attempts at defining good or love and then our desire to subject God to those human constructions. Rather, I emphasize obedience to God and the revelation God has given us. Beyond that, it is a lot of speculation to me. But this by no means suggests that I think that God is less than good. After all, the self-revelation of God is that God is good (and beyond that, God is love). But within that self-revelation are stories that demonstrate that I am truly unable to understand what that really means in full. Abraham and Isaac and other stories make this clear to me. We have had extensive discussions on this board regarding omnibenevolence. You might want to check those out.
Anyway...I am still interested in whether or not you are willing to concede that God does indeed have libertarian freedom. Not to trap you, but simply to begin to address some of the questions and objections you have raised. Fair enough? After all, if we are incoherent, you will have your chance to show at what point that becomes clear to you.
Thanks.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 01/29/2003 4:58:14 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/29/2003 12:02 PM (GMT -6) | | BTW: there are some pretty strong assumptions in Edward's use of the phrase "the nature of things". It is not at all clear that "the nature of things" functions with the casual simplicity that Edwards suggests. But that is another conversation. Let's deal with whether God possesses libertarian freedom or not first.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/29/2003 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | "aseity" is not in the Webster's dictionary, so I am still not certain, where does this term come from?
In a couple posts up, I say, "I'd say that God did not have to create anything. And being the first cause, he is self actualizing, he is "free" in the sense that you are saying. "
In my last post, I say, "what is not necessary in itself, must have a cause. I've argued that God is the first cause, therefore, he is necessary in himself."
Nowhere have i said that the concept of libertarian freedom is itself incoherent. I just don't believe it exists in humans or in the created world. That's all. It's a perfectly coherent idea. I understand it. Just don't think we have it. I;ve pretty much conceded that I think God has it. God is the ultimate cause of all effects. I said, I am not the cause of myself. Therefore I am not necessary. God is necessary in himself.
I said I agree with what Edwards wrote, specifically, "there is not, in the nature of things, any antecedent necessity that a world be created. That is, to suppose its non-existence implies no contradiction, it being evidently the effect of sovereign pleasure"
Doesn't that tell you right there that God did not have to create? That the universe and us are not necessary beings or whatever you'd define it as?
The reason I am reluctant to say emphatically that God has libertarian free will, I thought I explained it. That I am not 100% that God can choose to act outside his nature. I said "trap" as a joke, but that tells you how hard it is to convey tone across email or postings.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 1/29/2003 3:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Here you go:
Aseity
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 1/29/2003 3:24 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Nowhere have i said that the concept of libertarian freedom is itself incoherent. I just don't believe it exists in humans or in the created world. That's all. It's a perfectly coherent idea. I understand it. Just don't think we have it. I;ve pretty much conceded that I think God has it. God is the ultimate cause of all effects. I said, I am not the cause of myself. Therefore I am not necessary. God is necessary in himself.
If it is the case that God has it (libertarian freedom), why can't we have it?
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/30/2003 3:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks RD,
That is very clarifying. Sorry to belabor the point as I have, but I do think it is an important one. I hope you will be patient with me as I interact with your response:
quote:
In a couple posts up, I say, "I'd say that God did not have to create anything. And being the first cause, he is self actualizing, he is "free" in the sense that you are saying. "
In my last post, I say, "what is not necessary in itself, must have a cause. I've argued that God is the first cause, therefore, he is necessary in himself."
We are fully in agreement here.
quote:
Nowhere have i said that the concept of libertarian freedom is itself incoherent. I just don't believe it exists in humans or in the created world. That's all. It's a perfectly coherent idea. I understand it. Just don't think we have it. I;ve pretty much conceded that I think God has it. God is the ultimate cause of all effects. I said, I am not the cause of myself. Therefore I am not necessary. God is necessary in himself.
I am glad to hear that the concept of libertarian freedom itself is not what is being attacked. Frequently Calvinists do argue that libertarian freedom is a myth of the sinful human mind. I understand that you don’t think humans have it. This is a point of contention.
Here’s the question:
Do you see some logical connection between being a necessary being and the possession of libertarian freedom?
Is it possible that libertarian freedom is a feature of our being created in the image of God? Let me ask this the other way round: What is it about the image of God that seperates us from the animals?
quote:
I said I agree with what Edwards wrote, specifically, "there is not, in the nature of things, any antecedent necessity that a world be created. That is, to suppose its non-existence implies no contradiction, it being evidently the effect of sovereign pleasure"
Consider the analogical language used here. "sovereign pleasure." Do you think that this idea of pleasure has a human counter-part? Would human pleasure not also presuppose our ability to influence the world according to it? Just a thought.
quote:
Doesn't that tell you right there that God did not have to create? That the universe and us are not necessary beings or whatever you'd define it as?
Yes, it is clear. We are in agreement about this.
quote:
The reason I am reluctant to say emphatically that God has libertarian free will, I thought I explained it. That I am not 100% that God can choose to act outside his nature. I said "trap" as a joke, but that tells you how hard it is to convey tone across email or postings.
Thanks for clarifying. Why would you connect the idea of libertarian freedom to the idea of "acting outside" of one’s nature? I don’t see the need for this. What if it is within one’s nature to exercise libertarian freedom? I agree and appreciate that it is difficult to pick up tone in emails and postings. Please understand that I am enjoying our dialogue. You are a very clear thinker and that makes it especially fun to talk to you.
blessings,
Modes
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/30/2003 3:57 AM (GMT -6) | | A-Theist: If it's the case that God is omnipotent, why aren't humans? If God is omnipresent, why aren't humans? etc.
Just b/c God has free will, does it necessarily follow that humans do? I've already written several posts about why I do not believe that. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/30/2003 4:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Modes of Thought:
"Is it possible that libertarian freedom is a feature of our being created in the image of God? Let me ask this the other way round: What is it about the image of God that seperates us from the animals?"
I don't know what it means to be made in the image of God. There are so many arguments about that as well. My first reaction is that we are created with reason. And I don't believe other mammals are. Other mammals do not have self-consciousness. Humans do. But I do not equate reason and self-consciousness with free will.
"Would human pleasure not also presuppose our ability to influence the world according to it? "
This is why i think there is a problem of semantics here. I have not denied that people have ability to influence (animals influence too. Heck, viruses and bacteria influence) - AS A PART OF THE CAUSAL CHAIN. THat is the difference here. You are saying that humans are agents that are not caused nor are they random. I am saying that the creation of humans (or even each individual birth) is an event along the causal chain.
I have never been able to define "soul." I do know that many, if not most, humans, seem to think that we are self-actualizing. That there is some little being up there in our mind that is the actual 'us' which is controlling our actions. That it is different than the brain. I just don't see any evidence for that. I've been saying that we have the ''illusion" of free will, b/c it seems that we are making our own way, that each individual is the captain of his or her own ship, so to speak. The buck stops here. And yes, each individual's actions can be traced back to that individual. but that is so simplistic. Right now I am typing. Each action in the action of typing is caused by something. The keyboard being hit by my fingers, corresponding to the computer (I don't have any clue about how THAT works, LOL ) I am deciding to move my fingers. What's controlling my fingers? My brain is. What's controlling my brain? Me? What is me? I don't get it.
Now I realise that deterministic views can easily fit in with naturalism. But I also believe that it is compatible with theism- where God is the first cause . I asked in a couple posts up if someone could describe to me an event that is neither caused nor random. Can you do that? Everything an individual does is traceable back to the fact that he or she was born (or created). Just to be completely simplistic- we can ask- Why did President Kennedy get shot? Because he was in Dallas in Nov. 1963, because he was riding within firing range of Oswald, because he was there for an event, because he was president, because he ran for president, because he was a senator, and so on, back to, because he was born in 1917. Why was he born in 1917? B/c his parents conceived him 9 months before. Why? And so on and so forth. There is a chain here that is NOT started by any individual. It was started by God. I am just trying to show the gist of this- I know it is extremely simplistic.
Finally, you said "Why would you connect the idea of libertarian freedom to the idea of "acting outside" of one’s nature? I don’t see the need for this. What if it is within one’s nature to exercise libertarian freedom? "
This makes sense. That's why i've said I am not sure what I think about it. I think of libertarian freedom as being able to exhibit any nature one chooses. So if God IS love, for example, does he have the ability to be NOT love? I don't know. I do believe that God, ultimately, is the creator of the laws of physics. We all act according to those laws. Does God have to? I guess not. I guess miracles that violate those laws are God operating outside those laws. So perhaps you are correct on this point.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 1/30/2003 4:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Hm. I havn't seen em, but it seems like a good portion of your objections have been answered on bibliclcla grounds by Greg and Tyler--not to mention the others. I dont' know what your defence that God can only posseses libertarian freedom is, but I personally can't see why God wouldn't extend this to us.
for what it is worth
Peace,
Paul
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/30/2003 4:29 AM (GMT -6) | | A-Theist - what you personally believe doesn't matter to me. Anyone can believe what they want. WHY do you believe it? Where's your evidence? You don't have to agree with me, but you can't say you don't know why I say what I do. For heaven's sake, I"ve been explaining and trying to argue my positions in several posts. I've been backing them up with evidence. You don't have to like or agree with it, but don't say I have not been doing so.
And I know Greg has the answers to all this stuff from his perspective- so do many theologians and philosophers of all stripes. But that would mean there is no point in discussing anything. Can't we discuss it and what we think, even though there are books out there addressing all these issues? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 1/30/2003 4:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Can you conceive of a being acting within its nature and encountering more than one possiblity of equal probability? Is it possible that such a being might solve the problem by preference of one possiblity over another not by random chance, but by passion? Pleasure? For me it is vastly simplified when we consider it in more concrete relational terms. Let us consider me and God:
God has led me to do x.
It is in my best interest eternally to do x.
But it is in my opinion, more pleasurable to me to do y right now.
I have a choice. How is this resolved?
My take on this is that it truly is up to me to obey. To fail to do this is sin. But whether or not obey or sin is determined by me. It is an act of discipline on my part to obey. But that is actually the path of more resistance. It is an act of selfishness on my part to sin, but that is both more pleasurable immediately and easier to do. Add to this the ambiguity of faith. I do not "see" God. I do not actually physically "hear" God, but yet I have faith that places me precisely in this tension.
I am saying that it is God's will to place me precisely in this tension. It is a sort of test. Will I obey or not? God clearly has a history of doing this.
Can you see how this fits the biblical narrative?
The paradox is only one for thought. It is a real, concrete delimma in life. Will I be faithful? Or disobedient? The possibility or either is very real. Metaphysically real. But in such a way that it requires the choice on my part. It is like God puts us at the top of a perfect triangle on a sled (we are at the tip, balancing VERY precariously) will we slide down the side of obedience or sin? God intends us to have to deal with this.
Now, I know that you will want to say that this is simplistic and that there are factors that decide this that are not controlled by me. But why abstract in this way? Especially if you can't demonstrate that this is so? What if God really is desiring us to be tested in this way?
BTW: I do hope that no one gets discouraged from discussing these things. RD, you are easily one of the more pleasant Calvinists I have discussed these things with, and I agree with you that this conversation has not yet developed to the point where one might expect any sort of "conversion." I see this as a conversation of clarification.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 01/30/2003 09:38:03 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/30/2003 4:47 AM (GMT -6) | | RD,
I'm enjoying following your discussion with Modes. Could you clarify something for me? Do you believe that God could have (but didn't) create a being with libertarian free will? Or do you believe that it is not metaphysically possible for God to have created a being with libertarian free will?
I don't remember if you already answered this on another thread.
Thanks.
JET
Edited by - JET on 01/30/2003 09:51:53 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/30/2003 5:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey, RD,
I think you walked across the heart--or at least part of it--of the discussion when you said, "I think of libertarian freedom as being able to exhibit any nature one chooses. So if God IS love, for example, does he have the ability to be NOT love?
The kinds of questions such as "Is God able to make a rock so big He can't lift it?" or, more precise to this conversation, "If God is love, can He choose to not be love or not love?" stem from the concept of libertarian free will being exhaustive; this is a legitimate and valid challenge to tackle. I, for one, do not think strongly enough to straddle these kinds of questions well enough to think through them. But here are two questions I'd like to see discussed here because ultimately, I believe, these two questions are critical in view of this discussion.
1. If it is thought to be that God does not possess exhaustive libertarian freedom, does this exclude God from having any freedoms (viz. the freedom to create)?
2. If it is thought to be that God does not have exhaustive libertarian freedom, can God give His creation called humanity the freedom to make free choices within the construct of its limited created framework?
In other words, is it impossible for humans to have any freedom if God does not possess exahaustive libertarian freedom?
I believe it is a fact that humanity makes free choices. That humanity cannot make these choices in an non-influential construct does not nullify the concept of free choice. It means humanity is limited in what free choices are available (non-exhaustive freedom). This limitation is perhaps part of the chain RD has mentioned, but unlike the links of a metal chain, where there is no freedom, humanity is not exhaustively linked to complete restriction; as evident by the fact that I may choose to stop typing this at any moment I so choose...right about now!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 1/30/2003 5:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Where's your evidence? You don't have to agree with me, but you can't say you don't know why I say what I do. For heaven's sake, I"ve been explaining and trying to argue my positions in several posts
I said that because I haven't read your posts, not because I "don't know why you say what you do." One more time: I HAVEN'T READ YOUR POSTS! That means I haven't given them thought. I have read a few of Greg's books on open theism, and have thought it through and it makes sense to me. I feel that Greg has adequately answered a lot of objections to the opposition. I in no way said you couldn't argue your point-of-view, I just said that I believe some of it has been answered.
I understand that you are getting questioned from all sides, and it is hard defending your position and holding on to your (concept of) God as he slowly gets torn apart, but I don't think that gives you an excuse to misread my post and then get all snippy with me.
its as if you ask x and y answers x, somehow that answer is still not sufficient enough for you? Where does it end?
quote:
what you personally believe doesn't matter to me
I believe in God, does that matter to you?
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 01/30/2003 10:22:16 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/30/2003 5:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey- believe me, I am not discouraged! In fact I know I am probably getting obsessive here...
I guess what I'm hearing from your last post is that we have to obey. That it is up to us to obey. Where does God's grace come in? Let's say you keep the 10 commandments perfectly - but you happen to be an atheist. What good is obedience then?
I've been arguing from a Calvinist perspective, but I wouldn't call myself a Calvinist. (Besides the point) I find TULIP to be revolting to my sense of fairness. (maybe I lean more towards a universalist understanding) But then again, there are few things that are fair! I"ve said it before, there are things that just ARE, and it does not seem fair. It does not seem fair that I come from an intact family, that I have a great education, a good career and income, friends, and the ability to think. Others are born disabled, retarded, to broken homes, to starvation, etc. Why is that? I thank God for my position, but someone would say, how easy is that for you when you have all this stuff through no merit of your own? I can't escape the conclusion that God's sovereignty is controlling our existence. Unless we believe in some type of karma, that if we were bad in a past life , we come back as an untouchable in India. And, my "choices" are undeniably shaped by the position I was born into. For one thing, I can actually comprehend different positions and make cogent arguments. If I was an untouchable in India, I hardly believe my free will would be the same as mine is now. If i was illiterate and dirt poor, my decisions would be completely shaped by that environment. I would hardly question the religion of my community- Hinduism, or what have you. Not to say that people never change their religion. But there is something that makes them do so, some influence, what is it? It can't be you yourself that wills yourself to believe what you do.
Part of this too goes to my concept of God, if God is almighty, if he is the creator of the universe- why would I possibly think that I am of some great consequence? How arrogant and ignorant that position would be! The universe is vast- just thinking of the concept of the planets revolving around the sun, the distances in light years- i mean, it is mindboggling! And we say we believe God created and controls that (according to the laws of physics). It is not at all hard for me to think that he controls humans!
For a lot of evangelicals, the focus is on ME ME ME! What is God doing for me? How can I have a better relationship with my kids and spouse? How can I get a better job- how can I get more more more for myself and my happiness? It sickens me how inward focused a lot of evangelicals are. We've lost the sense of awe and holiness of God. It's like God is our "good buddy" - I find that so disrespectful. I am palling around with the creator of the universe as if I am on par with him! And God is desperate for MY decision to follow him?
In the same manner, God cares about ALL his creation! He cares about the sparrows! Not one sparrow falls outside of God's will. Does the sparrow have free will? Can the sparrow decide whether to follow God or not? But yet God still loves the sparrow- and God still controls nature- he cares for them- how much more so does he control humanity?
I'm sorry I am off on a tangent- and this is NOT good evidence- this is emotionalism, I know. But I had to vent! :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/30/2003 5:30 AM (GMT -6) | | | No, actually, A-Theist, it doesn't matter to me that you believe in God. At last count, 96% of Americans believe in God. Obviously, the phrase "I believe in God" can mean anything. | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 1/30/2003 5:31 AM (GMT -6) | | I know that you believe in God! Does that matter?
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/30/2003 5:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Don't ya just love this site, RD!
I mean, vent away, Your Attorneyness!
Hey, I don't have the kind of mind you do, so when I first found this site, it was like, "Oh...sh...t (spelled with two 'o's, mind you, though the other word came to mind!), I'm...I...I don't even understand what the hek anyone's saying here?!!?!???!"
I couldn't vent because I didn't have the slightest idea what the hek I would have vented about! I just kind of sank to the floor and begged God to please go find the other brain cell I knew I had but that was out wandering around in every other place besides my head!
Gads!
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 01/30/2003 10:32:48 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 1/30/2003 5:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Let's bring down those numbers, shall we?: I know you believe in the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Does that matter?
God (whoever that is) Bless
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
Edited by - A_Theist on 01/30/2003 10:39:55 AM
Edited by - A_Theist on 01/30/2003 10:42:42 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/30/2003 5:51 AM (GMT -6) | | A-Theist,
With all due respect, I don't know what your intention is here. This thread is talking about free will vs. determinism- as an attribute of humans and God. It is not talking about whether God exists. Or whether I believe in God or you do.
When I say I don't care what YOU believe- I don't mean it in the way I think you are taking it. I mean, why should I, in the context of this discussion, care that you come here and say "Personally I think that we have free will." So? Where's the evidence? That's what I'm saying. If Einstein came on here and wrote that, I'd say the same thing! But Einstein would put forward evidence to support his assertion.
The fact that you believe in God, or I believe in God, in and of itself means nothing if we haven't defined what God we are talking about.
I'm coming to this thread with an academic mind, NOT a Sunday School one. If I was in Sunday School, the context would be much different. In that context, we are talking about personal relationships, worship, Bible Study, etc.
So what I meant was, for the purposes of this thread, I do not care what someone personally believes. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 1/30/2003 6:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
a good career and income
I used to have a good career and income until I got addicted to this @#$%#! forum. Really cuts into the billable hours if you know what I mean. 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 1/30/2003 6:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
With all due respect, I don't know what your intention is here. This thread is talking about free will vs. determinism- as an attribute of humans and God. It is not talking about whether God exists. Or whether I believe in God or you do.
I am defending myself against your false accusations. You telling me you don't care what I believe was taken as a rude remark. I wonder if you would have gone the whole nine yards and gave me the finger.
my evidence rests on all of the evidence on the board against your calvinist arguments--I agree with them 100%; but then again, what does 100% have to do with this argument? Since I am not bringing any evidence to the board my opinions are in vain. (In vain even though they rest on the belief that I believe your opponents are correct.)
Can you feel the warmth of Christ on this thread?
Oh wait, that doesn't mattter! We aren't arguing from a (simplistic) Sunday School mindset here, so Christ doesn't matter in this context because we are talking about God's forknowledge--something way past Christ and what a little kid might ask. Oooopsie.
academic mind
I hope academia doesn't turn me into an bitter person who needs to be right.
All that studying, all that time, just to have your ideas challenged. It must be tough. But where are my manners? I have digressed far far away from the argument.
my bad.
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/30/2003 6:35 AM (GMT -6) | | | You surely are all over the place. I'm not even going to reply because it is worthless. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 1/30/2003 6:37 AM (GMT -6) | | | And don't worry, you're in no danger of turning into an academic mind that needs to be right. | | Back to Top | | |
|
a_theist
"Thy will be done."
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286
| Posted 1/30/2003 6:54 AM (GMT -6) | | not right, just not wanting to be misunderstood.
The unexamined life may not be worth living, but the overexamined life is nothing to write home about either.
Daniel C. Dennett
| | Back to Top | | |
| 92 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:00 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|