 |
 | 
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/25/2005 10:43 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
MephEternal said...
1) I cannot BELIEVE that you still believe that I'm a determinist after all this time.
Laika:
I didn't say you were a determinist. I said the position that God will eventually and uni-laterally reconcile all to Him is determinism. (That's the only way He can guarantee 100% compliance). Many do not want to be reconciled to Him. It's not about knowlege, Satan knows as much about God as any being could. It's about trust and faith. Judas had as little "epistemic distance" as anyone, it isn't about knowlege, it's about faith and trust.
Faith is the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
God's kingdom isn't based on "rock bottom" experiential knowlege, it's based on believing things that don't exist to our perceptions. When they're bobbing in the Lake of Fire, the existence of God and the belief that He rewards those who come to Him and punish those who don't are not matters of faith anymore. They're directly experiencing these things.
No chance for faith in the Lake of Fire AND without faith it's impossible to please God.
MephEternal said...
2) Your gross oversimplification of my position (a schoolhouse with a door) is leadin' me to believe that you either do NOT understand my position very clearly...or...you DO understand my position but are intent on gross oversimplification for some reason.
I contend that the biblical God so wants all people to be saved and be in loving relationship with God that God will do everything in God's power to accomplish that. Further, I contend that there is a possible world that God COULD actualize where it is extremely, extremely probable that all people will end up choosing a love relationship with God. What this means is that God would actualize that possible world...and THAT is the world in which we currently live.
Laika:
The schoolhouse with a door is the analogy presented by Talbott, or is it Aryan Jesus Nels Ferre? But you do believe the Lake of Fire is where some people will decide to serve God.
For those people, that's rather expedient, self-serving and totally lacking in faith. Without which it is impossible to please God.
Of course God will do all God can (while people are still alive) but He won't force people into a relationship they don't want.
Your argument seems to hinge on God creating the possible world where everyone accepts Him. But since many haven't, your argument fails.
Mephi boasted:
People can hate on my Christian universalism all they want, even if they can't knock it logically.
Laika: Well here's your chance to answer my simple and clear objections.
"The blood of Jesus Christ could no more wash away sins than the blood of a chicken." -- Nels Ferre Post Edited (Laika) : 7/25/2005 11:18:39 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/25/2005 11:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Additionally; if "ainon" doesn't mean "eternal" but rather "week and a half (age)", then all the passages that describe God's love as "ainon" and Jesus' rule as "ainon" would have to be translated as "God's love is for a week and a half", "Jesus' rule is for a week and a half".
discuss
or cheerlead
"The blood of Jesus Christ could no more wash away sins than the blood of a chicken." -- Nels Ferre Post Edited (Laika) : 7/25/2005 12:05:43 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/25/2005 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | |
Seriously Meph,
You say that we have to believe that it will all work out in the end, but I have to tell you, you make me want to be an atheist. The only problem is, what are the other alternatives as you say? Where else do we turn for hope? Hey, maybe we should turn to our tangible selves, but I’m afraid we’ll always end up “missing something” because there is that God size hole that only God can fill.
Anyway, concerning your thoughts near the beginning of this thread, do you remember this question I posed to you?
Been having a discussion with this guy about the tsunami that hit South East Asia. Here is what I asked and his response.
: Is it abhorent to you that God could have orchestrated a tsunami or a 9/11 for some
: greater goal for his creation?
Not necessarily. But you may have heard about the mudslide here in North Vancouver that wiped out a couple houses and killed at least one of its residents just the other day. To me, the tsunami is just another incident like that, only bigger. So unless you are prepared to read divine significance into ALL natural disasters, no matter how few or how many there victims might be, I don't cotton to the idea that we should ascribe divine significance to the disasters which happen to be hyped by the media.
Question: If we cannot know "the big picture" i.e. whether some natural catastrophe is a part of a judgment of God, a "double effect" i.e. God setting a bone (to use Iconoclast's phrase) couldn't we also say that God had absolutely NOTHING to do with said event? If we look at the "cosmic chess game analogy" according to Meph Man from the PBS Faith and Doubt thread:
So for any lost piece, we just must surmise that somehow, in the parameters of that particular game and the moves that were made, that any given sacrifice of a piece was NECESSARY...for if he COULD have spared the piece, he WOULD have.
Doesn't the necessity cancel out any chaos or randomness? In other words, how does randomness figure into this? If there are parameters, within those parameters there is a lot of allowance for freedom for randomness and chaos. Therefore, "any given sacrifice of a piece WOULD NOT be necessary."
Meph Man? Tom? Pizza Face (whoever that is)?
Meph Man’s response:
I see what you are saying. Here's the thing. What I meant was that, for ever particular instance of evil, there was REASON why he couldn't prevent it. Otherwise, God WOULD prevent the evil. For what you are talking about (chance happenings of evil), we'd have to say that...
1) this occured in a designated area were randomness and chaos was allowed
2) the possibility of the evil was an ACCEPTABLE RISK to God, and
3) God allowed that realm of "acceptable risk" in that PARTICULAR area for a GOOD REASON.
Unless you want to say that God was absolutely arbitrary in choosing WHAT ASPECTS of Creation would have randomness...and possibilities for chance occurances of evil.
In other words, Brandon, the greater good argument assumes that God does EVERYTHING out of intentionality...NEVER out of whimsy or being arbitrary. If God does something, it's for a good reason. If God ALLOWS something, it's for a good reason. What this means is that even God granting pockets of randomness and chaos to certain places MUST have intentionality behind them.
See the issue?
It seems to me that you have well placed angst against both Calvinism and OVT’s theodicy. And as you and other author’s have said in the past, no theodicy is going to cut it. As a matter of fact, when we go through sh&* what we DON’T need is a nicely refined theodicy. But as Wolterstorff says (about his son’s death) what we need is someone to come along side us and sit with us on the “mourning bench.” At this point I can’t help but come away thinking that maybe the Calvinists are right on the “mystery question” though. NOTHING’S going to do and I have to believe that not only will God make it ALL right, but that our sufferings are no where NEAR comparable to the unspeakable joy that we will one day experience IN God. For the reasons you give, (“…for ever particular instance of evil, there was REASON…”) isn’t this the reason why they chalk it up to mystery?
Early on in my faith, I read a book called, “The Tracks of a Fellow Struggler.” This book was of a man walking through a cold winter season of his life. His daughter had leukemia and eventually died from it. At one point he tells the story of a son who died in WWII. The mother asked, “Where was God when my son died?” And a chaplain replied, “He was where he was when HIS son died.” I guess all I can say is that God “knows” ‘cause he’s been through it. And so, whatever we go through, we can be sure that God is not “dishing out what he has not already taken upon himself.” Maybe Mel Gibson’s movie “The Passion of the Christ” is good for THIS reason.
Frankly, thinking of this does me no good. I don’t have a response. I sit here in sobering, AWE-some silence at a loss for words.
Anyhoo, thanks for sharing your personal story with us Miss E. Our thoughts were attuned to each other. And Meph Man. Thanks for working through this. Really appreciate and love ya man!
Brandon
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/25/2005 12:33 PM (GMT -6) | |
BBBCanada said...
Meph Man? Tom? Pizza Face (whoever that is)? That would be me.
ずっとわかった
so much for discussing ideas anymore
"The blood of Jesus Christ could no more wash away sins than the blood of a chicken." -- Nels Ferre Post Edited (Laika) : 7/25/2005 12:37:08 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/25/2005 2:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika,
Ok...ok...ok...
It appears to me that your problems with my universalism are as follows...
1) Faith is when belief in something is given WHEN there is uncertainty regarding that thing. I cannot believe in something that I objectively KNOW to be true. The same dynamic exists with trust. Now, I have reason to believe that faith and trust are necessary elements of entering into a love relationship with God. As Hebrews says, it's IMPOSSIBLE to please God without faith. And this is where Meph's universalism has a problem. There would be no real uncertainty in Meph's proposed "rock-bottom experience", and there would be no choices of faith or trust more than there would just be an acknowledgment and acquiesence to the truth of the matter. If there is no context for faith and trust, there can be no love relationship.
2) The universalistic interpreation of the greek term "aionion" is problematic. It seems clear that "aionion" means eternal or everlasting. If it doesn't mean eternal or forever, what does it mean?
Fine. Let's do this.
Responding to 1
Your concern is an articulation of a main argument made by evangelical theologian Jerry Walls against universalist theologian Thomas Talbott. He states that faith and trust in God are absolutely essential elements to initiating a relationship with God. For God to remove ALL epistemic distance between Godself and sentient creation would be to necessarily remove all opportunity for faith and trust to exist. How did I deal with this? Remember my steps of the post-mortem process within the hellish existence...
Step 1: A sentient being is almost completely solidified against God
Step 2: God decreases epistemic distance (NOT to 0!)
Step 3: God reveals Godself to be the TRUE means and end of all sentient being dispositional desire and longing.
Step 4: At the "rock bottom" experience, the sentient being has a deep understanding and belief of what God reveals about Godself...and God's relation to the dispositional desires and longing within itself. The sentient being also realizes the utter futility of what it's already done up to now.
Step 5: A unchangeable desire for sustained pursuit of a loving relationship with God emerges from a RATIONAL, yet UNFREE understanding of God. This is because the sentient being realizes that actualization of it's own dispositional desires CANNOT be fulfilled without a love relationship with God. Unidirectionality is set, because of the empowered rationality of the sentient being. (Remember, true moral freedom ASSUMES rationality)
Step 6: God increases epistemic distance significantly as to not unilaterally determine all movement of the sentient being.
Step 7: The sentient being FREELY lives out it's new DEEP, rational understanding about God, itself, and their relation by beginning to actualize the sustained pursuit of loving relationship with God that is being unchangably desired. Consistent love of God may NOT be instantaneous. Mostly likely, it won't be.
Step 8: Over time, as the sentient being experiences more and more loving moments, it moves from primarily consciously pursuing the love relationship with God because of one's OWN dispositional actualization...to also consciously pursuing the love relationship for it's own sake.
Step 9: Over more time, as the sentient being experiences more and more loving moments, moves from Step 7 to consciously pursuing the love relationship with God for God's sake.
Step 10: Over Steps 8 through 9, solidification towards God is taking place, as the character gets more and more developed towards God. Finally, completely solidification in God takes place.
The "faith dilemma" is dealt with in step 7. Step 6 was the point of acknowledment of truth. Step 7 is where the "leap of faith" is actually made. My statement from a post...
Then we have Step 7...
Sometime in the post-rock-bottom process, the sentient being begins to actually receive (rather than reject) God's love...internalizing it. For some beings, PERHAPS for the first time in a very long time. Then, the being makes the "leap" and freely actualizes a loving act or loving inclination towards God. It is HERE that the relationship TRANSFORMS and a God/creature love relationship actually begins. This actualization comes solely from the self-determining sentient being...and therefore qualifies as genuine love. Remember, this would not occur without libertarian free will. It must be said. It is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that this initial decision to love would never take place, because of libertarian free will. However, as before, the odds against this, all things considered, are SO REMOTE at this point, they become quite negligible and not a concern.
Anyways, from this point, a NEW type of knowledge emerges: lived, experiential knowledge. This knowledge formulation is growing towards what Walls' calls the "ultimate sense" of being fully informed about God where..."it means to know with profound clarity in the depths of our being and at all levels of our character that God is perfectly good and wise and that he is the indispensable source of our happiness and fulfillment."(page 117) This can ONLY be done by self-determining agents actualization loving activity with God. Only after concretely experiencing the internalization and reciprocation of God's love is growth in this area possible. A type of knowledge spiral forms. A snowball effect, if you will. To know God is to love God is to know God, etc. The beings, at this point, not only know at a cognitive level that their ways were futile, they know it know on an even deeper level...as they experience more and more love sharing with God.
Simply, faith and trust in God has more to deal with EMBRACING God when we don't internally know AS FACT that God is good or ultimately good FOR us. It is this INWARD EMBRACE that Walls argues (rightly, I may add) cannot be forced by God and be genuine. What I argue is that the inward embrace of God follows the acknowledgement of who God is. People are pushed to a place where they are forced to acknowledge the futility of their own lives...but this is NOT the same thing as people truly taking a leap of faith to believe in the GOOD character of God and live in that reality. It's the difference between saying...
Well, I guess there's no where else to turn but you, God. Everything else is a dead end. I suppose this means that You're the only game in town.
and saying...
Beyond you being the only option, I'm gonna BELIEVE that you are good, God. I've never experienced this so-called goodness for myself, but I'm gonna open up and trust that you are who you say you are.
There...is...a...HUGE...difference!
And it's this difference that makes the whole thing NOT utterly deterministic! At step 7, a choice to TRUST and BELIEVE in God's goodness is made...and the love relationship actually begins. Steps 2-6 only made the environment REEEEEALY conducive for that "inward embrace" to take place.
[Note: For Miss E and others. There's a LOT of stuff behind all this that I discussed while you weren't here. I'll try to get all the threads together and post links so you can catch up!]
So, Laika, hopefully, you can see the point. My idea of universalism does NOT remove the essential "inward embrace" that is needed to fully initiate and consummate a love relationship with God. Faith and trust ARE preserved, even though it's post-mortem. And anyone who believe in post-mortem development of faith (like Dr. Gregory Boyd AND Dr. John Piper!!!) shouldn't have a problem with the essential idea.
****************************
Responding to 2
This argument seems to miss the point altogether concerning my ideas on universalism. The chief difference, I've said before, is my concept of "self". With a more process view of the "self", eternal (everlasting) destruction IS AFFIRMED for people who endure the hellish post-mortem existence! In the process view of selfhood, the self is not seen more as a substantialist UNIT more than a constellation of experiences unified by a dispositional center. Elements of themselves that are not in continuity with the Kingdom of God are lost to them FOREVER. Basically, I take the stance of annihilationism with the eternality of destruction describing the endurance of the end effects, not the actual suffering from the hellish existence. However, UNLIKE annihiliationism, I assert that the entire self is not annihilated in this process...that there is some remnant that can be redeemed. Again, NONE of this is intelligible without shifting our ideas about "selfhood." But it shows the true issue as not being an exegetical one, but a philosophical one about how one is to describe the self. So, a person can believe in eternal destruction of all sin and evil...WHILE believing that all PERSONS can be saved.
(Note: This one is REALLY hard to get people to deal with because so relatively few evangelicals REALLY understand process philosophy. If it's not being caricatured or derived as liberal or heretical, it's pretty much being ignored. So OF COURSE, many people ain't gonna know what the hell I'm talking about when I talk about a "process view of the self" So you end up having to give a friggin primer on process before you can even get the conversation really going. Loads of fun, I tell ya!  )
******************
How's this, Laika? Good enough for ya?
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/25/2005 4:02 PM (GMT -6) | | | Doesn't step 7 just beg the question? How do we know that the person will make the free leap of faith? If it's free then the odds are still 50/50. (S)he has two equally possible choices. To talk about it being extremely probable is to talk about it in a way that removes freedom. Free will is not based on probabilities. For a game of craps to have good odds, we must assume that the dice can't choose how to land. Otherwise they could choose to spite us despite the way we lovingly breathe on them before the throw. Freedom makes probability meaningless.
But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 7/25/2005 4:10:38 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/25/2005 4:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Have fallen behind on this thread. Sorry. Now I've got to prep for new Fall classes and I'll be spending even LESS time here. But I wanted to toss out something:
(1) With Laika, I also (and Mephi knows this) still struggle with seeing just how LFW fits into Mephi's version of universalism. But my struggles may not bother me as much as they bother Laika. I'm just talking for ME, here, OK? Just ME! But the truth is that I once really DID want the wicked to burn. I wanted them to suffer. And the very idea of there being an alternative to our partying in heaven over the audible screams of the wicked damned locked up in hell below really bothered me. Universalism? Pi**ed me off. Why? Just like the parable of the workers who agreed to work for X amount of $ all day but who then became ANGRY when the employer hired others late in the day to work an hour or two for the same X amount of $. My fundamental objection to universalism was not LFW but rather God's grace and kindness to people in hell who lived their entire lives here indulging in the very sin I WANTED to share in but decided to avoid because I thought it would eternally separate me from God. It didn't seem fair that I'd serve God in this life and forgoe all the beer and babes to win heaven when God would end up eventually emptying hell out of guys who enjoyed the beer and the babes their whole lives! It ticked me off.
(2) I'm beyond that now. The thought of hell really bothers me, not as a logical possibility, but as a metaphysical reality--people missing out on the greatest thing in the univese, God's sweet love. Now I really do hope there's a way some version of universalism can be true EVEN IF I still have techinical-logical difficulties seeing how it can be. This change of heart has changed the way I engage universalists (not the mamby pamby, soft on sin, pluralistic version of universalism, but a version like Mephi's, where hell is real and you DON'T wanna go there, not even for an hour), and it's made me a little less--what's the word--critical of the idea and a little more hopeful that we might find some way through to a universalistic hope for the wicked. Point is--while I argue against Mephi's version of universalism on technical grounds I secretly hope somebody finds a way to utterly smash my objections (with reason, logically consistent, and being biblical sound).
I honestly don't know if there is a version of universalism that can be squared with other concerns (like those Laika expresses), but though my HEAD is on the side of the evidence thus far (which is why I'm not yet in the universalist camp), my HEART is entirely in the universalist camp. I wish it were true.
Does any of this speak to you Laika? Drink a few beers and then read it again!
(3) On a slightly different note. I'd like to say that I think it's a popular myth that there even is a "OVT Theodicy." I don't think there is such a thing. The future is open just in case the A-theory of time is true and we exercise LFW at least some of the time. It's a friggin COSMOLOGY. That's all. You toss in an omniscient God. OK. But you still have the same fundamental metaphysic. But that metaphysic isn't unique. It's shared by all libertarians. OVTers inherit the basic free will defense. There is no one, unique-to-open theism, theodicy. Looking back on my own journey to the open view, I don't think theodicy played the determining role. But a LOT of people come to the open view believing (for whatever reasons) that it really does offer a UNIQUE theodicy that solves the problem of evil. But it just doesn't. An open theist can pretty much dump all of Greg's six theses (except for the reality of LFW, that's whay accounts for our choices being 'open'), the warfare theodicy, etc., and still be an open theist. I'd like open theists to realize this and stop talking as if the open view offered its own unique "theodicy." It doesn't. And I'll tell ya what, when open view converts find out that they don't have the answers to evil and suffering, some of them will feel betrayed and renig on their views. I can think of one such person already--Ochuk. Used to post here a lot. Claims he did embrace open theism and later left it. Why? It wasn't the answer-all to evil.
The upshot of this is that objections (by Calvinists, say, or whomever) that the open veiw doesn't "solve" the problem of evil or offer anything "new" to the discussion are entirely beside the point. So the open veiw doesn't solve the problem! Big friggin deal. So what? Must it be a condition for the truth-value of any proposition that it's being true explains evil? Give me a break. When a Calvinist objects, "The open view doesn't solve the problem of evil, so that's an indication that it's wrong," I'm not at all impressed.
True, now that I'm an open theist, the truth that the future is partly open, that we possess LFW, all limit my options in theodicy. But again, the OV doesn't offer anything unique. Indeterminists (Arminians and Molinsits) all believe in LFW and the objective reality of indeterminacy.
Love to all,
Tom
"doGfood itself is good" SahidPost Edited (TGB) : 7/25/2005 4:31:05 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/25/2005 5:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Sahid:
Doesn't step 7 just beg the question? How do we know that the person will make the free leap of faith? If it's free then the odds are still 50/50. (S)he has two equally possible choices. To talk about it being extremely probable is to talk about it in a way that removes freedom. Free will is not based on probabilities. For a game of craps to have good odds, we must assume that the dice can't choose how to land. Otherwise they could choose to spite us despite the way we lovingly breathe on them before the throw. Freedom makes probability meaningless.
I've haven't eaten in 2 days. I'm very, very hungry. Stomach's growlin' like crazy. Someone comes by and brings me some KFC and a soda. It's right in front of me. I can smell it. There's nothing physically or psychologically barring me from eating the chicken and soda. Nor is there anything DETERMINING that I eat either. I may be INFLUENCED by the smells, look, and such, but I am not DETERMINED. I am free to either eat or not eat the stuff.
Is it REALLY a 50/50 probability that I'll make the "free leap" to eat?
*************************
Tom:
With Laika, I also (and Mephi knows this) still struggle with seeing just how LFW fits into Mephi's version of universalism.
How does it fit, Tom? Short version: Only a sentient being's use of LFW can bring a person from saying "You are God" (Step 5) to saying "You are MY God." (Step 7). Even unrepentent demons can do the former, but only persons who begin to trust God can do the latter.
You don't see it yet, man? After all our discussion?? It seems to me that the only "technical" problem with it that you have is the LFW. But I thought we got around this. All I basically had to say was the following...
For any sentient being, eventual eternal reconciliation with God cannot be said to have a probability occurance of 1 because of LFW. This means it is still metaphysically possible for someone to "choose" total eternal self-destruction. (We've already discussed the problems of calling such a choice "free" in any meaningful sense!) However, given all the factors dealing with the dispositional realities of sentient personhood, the nature of rationality, God's continual wooing, etc, the probability that a sentient being would freely "choose" eternal self-destruction approaches 0 (as Eric Reitan states) such that is it functionally inevitable that the being will eventually turn towards God.
I thought that as long as it was acknowledged that the probability of eventual eternal reconciliation was NOT 1 that everything was ok. What happened? Remember Reitan's "shaking box" analogy??
By the way, appreciate the vulnerability with the "older brother" syndrome. Sweet stuff.
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/25/2005 5:36 PM (GMT -6) | |
Meph said...
I may be INFLUENCED by the smells, look, and such, but I am not DETERMINED. I am free to either eat or not eat the stuff.
Is it REALLY a 50/50 probability that I'll make the "free leap" to eat?
Jesus was starving and he chose not to eat. As long as his free will was intact, it was up to him. He can be influenced i.e. take new factors into account, but if he is free, the choice is his.
Yes. If we are talking about free decisions, the probability of a choice is 1 divided by the number of options. If I'm controlled by my hunger, then the probabilities can change, but in such a case I've lost freedom.
Probabilities don't work in a very meaningful way when applied to free decisions. You can find the odds on a football game, but if the players excercise their freedom to throw it, we cry foul. You can find the odds at a craps table, but when the dice have free will, our odds are out the window. Even if the choices have consequences that make one much more favorable in my view, the views and values of the free actor may be different. Maybe you want to live the best life possible. Maybe someone else wants to spite God for letting a family member die. Pleasure and pain are not meaningful consequences to that person. They don't change anything (except perhaps it would be further proof that their spite is well placed). The degree to which these factors change the odds is proportional to the degree to which freedom is lost.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 7/25/2005 5:45:21 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
ThatDarnCat
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 7/25/2005 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
Meph said...
I may be INFLUENCED by the smells, look, and such, but I am not DETERMINED. I am free to either eat or not eat the stuff.
Is it REALLY a 50/50 probability that I'll make the "free leap" to eat?
Jesus was starving and he chose not to eat. As long as his free will was intact, it was up to him. He can be influenced i.e. take new factors into account, but if he is free, the choice is his.
Yes. If we are talking about free decisions, the probability of a choice is 1 divided by the number of options. If I'm controlled by my hunger, then the probabilities can change, but in such a case I've lost freedom.
Good call Sahid.
Bobby Sands and eight other IRA members chose to starve to death, so I guess their probability of freely choosing to eat when food was placed before them was 0.0
Probabililty has NO causal entailment.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/25/2005 7:57 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Mephi weaves a tale:
Step 1: A sentient being is almost completely solidified against God
Step 2: God decreases epistemic distance (NOT to 0!)
Step 3: God reveals Godself to be the TRUE means and end of all sentient being dispositional desire and longing.
Step 4: At the "rock bottom" experience, the sentient being has a deep understanding and belief of what God reveals about Godself...and God's relation to the dispositional desires and longing within itself. The sentient being also realizes the utter futility of what it's already done up to now.
Step 5: A unchangeable desire for sustained pursuit of a loving relationship with God emerges from a RATIONAL, yet UNFREE understanding of God. This is because the sentient being realizes that actualization of it's own dispositional desires CANNOT be fulfilled without a love relationship with God. Unidirectionality is set, because of the empowered rationality of the sentient being. (Remember, true moral freedom ASSUMES rationality)
Step 6: God increases epistemic distance significantly as to not unilaterally determine all movement of the sentient being.
Step 7: The sentient being FREELY lives out it's new DEEP, rational understanding about God, itself, and their relation by beginning to actualize the sustained pursuit of loving relationship with God that is being unchangably desired. Consistent love of God may NOT be instantaneous. Mostly likely, it won't be.
Step 8: Over time, as the sentient being experiences more and more loving moments, it moves from primarily consciously pursuing the love relationship with God because of one's OWN dispositional actualization...to also consciously pursuing the love relationship for it's own sake.
Step 9: Over more time, as the sentient being experiences more and more loving moments, moves from Step 7 to consciously pursuing the love relationship with God for God's sake.
Step 10: Over Steps 8 through 9, solidification towards God is taking place, as the character gets more and more developed towards God. Finally, completely solidification in God takes place.
Laika:
Nice tale but that's ultimately all it is, a tale. I see nothing in it to convince me of it's veracity. I could change parts of the tale and it would have the same lack of compunction:
Step 7: The sentient being FREELY lives out it's DEEP HATE and rebellion against God that it developed in it's life before death.
See? Nothing compelling me to leave it or change it, as all it is is an arbitrary tale.
Christianity is primarily a revealed religion. Let's see how some of the revelation handles your tale:
Step 1: A sentient being is almost completely solidified against God
OK, agreed. Romans 1 handles the devolution of our choices to our nature.
Step 2: God decreases epistemic distance (NOT to 0!)
Wrong 1. God casts rebels into the outer darkness away from His presence. Matthew 25
2. God gives a general call (Romans 1) but then leaves it up to us to seek Him first. Not the other way around.
Jeremiah 29:13 "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." (We seek ---> We find)
James 4:8 "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you" (We draw near to God ---> He draws near to us)
Having rejected the general revelation before death, they move further from God, not nearer. (Romans 1)
Step 3: God reveals Godself to be the TRUE means and end of all sentient being dispositional desire and longing.
'Reveal'? They're in the Lake of Fire. They know He exists. They know He rewards those who sought Him before death. They know He punishes those who didn't.
Hebrews 11:6 "for he who comes to God must believe (faith, the evidence of things NOT seen) that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."
Why would He have to "reveal" anything to them? Are they slapping their molten foreheads in the Lake of Fire, "Doh! NOW I get it"?
Step 4: At the "rock bottom" experience, the sentient being has a deep understanding and belief of what God reveals about Godself...and God's relation to the dispositional desires and longing within itself. The sentient being also realizes the utter futility of what it's already done up to now.
Step 5: A unchangeable desire for sustained pursuit of a loving relationship with God emerges from a RATIONAL, yet UNFREE understanding of God. This is because the sentient being realizes that actualization of it's own dispositional desires CANNOT be fulfilled without a love relationship with God. Unidirectionality is set, because of the empowered rationality of the sentient being. (Remember, true moral freedom ASSUMES rationality)
Mephi, it's TOO LATE for them to think that they can "actualize their own dispositional desires". They're floating in the Lake of Fire, remember? Their only dispositional desire would be getting out of the Lake of Fire, and it would be an purely selfish, Machiavellian choice then.
Step 6: God increases epistemic distance significantly as to not unilaterally determine all movement of the sentient being.
Step 7: The sentient being FREELY lives out it's new DEEP, rational understanding about God, itself, and their relation by beginning to actualize the sustained pursuit of loving relationship with God that is being unchangably desired. Consistent love of God may NOT be instantaneous. Mostly likely, it won't be.
As opposed to what? Before death, they could follow their own desires or submit themselves to God's desires. It's a choice. What choice do they have now? Do I obey God and get out of the Lake of Fire or just keep floating in the Lake of Fire? Not a choice of faith but an expedient, selfish, Machiavellian compulsion. Call it survival instinct, not a freely chosen decision (based on real alternatives) of faith.
.
.
.
There's no "assurance of things hoped for" in your tale. There's no "conviction of things not seen" in your tale.
Luke 16:
19 "Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day.
20 "And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores,
21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.
22"Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.
23 "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 "And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.'
25 "But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.
26 'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.'
27 "And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house--
28 for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29 "But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'
30 "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'
31 "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"
"Not be able" to cross the chasm, post-mortem.
It's your completely arbitrary tale versus revelation. No compelling reasons given to believe your arbitary tale.
As the cat pointed out, your thesis seems to hinge on the causality of probability.
But if I toss a coin and the probability is heads .5, tails .5, NOTHING compels it to land tails side up.
One toss, one of the probabilities does NOT obtain.
Post Edited (Laika) : 7/25/2005 8:43:17 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/25/2005 10:58 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
I think it makes perfect sense to suppose that a starving person would want to eat when presented with food. Of course if there are extenuating circumstances (like the greater desire to affect politics or culture through self-starvation) then one may pass the food by. But come on guys, Mephi's point isn't THAT difficult.
Tommy Sands starved himself to death. Someone who hates God will starve themselves to death, eternally. He's using probability as causality and that is invalid.
TGB said...
I also find the idea of probabilities applied to free decisions intelligible. A libertarian decision doesn't necessarily have to be, by defintion, a 50/50 choice.
Not all probabilities are 50/50. Who knows what those are, but probability is not causality. And his whole thesis hinges on the supposed causality of there being a large probability that all will choose God by faith in an existence where faith is impossible.
If only ONE (1) being rejects God, universalism is totally invalidated.
And Luke shows that the rich man was one (1) person who could NOT cross the chasm, post-death.
What're the grounds of truth for his arbitrary tale?
A starving man will eventually eat? Tommy Sands didn't.
But keep at it....
Post Edited (Laika) : 7/25/2005 11:01:39 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/25/2005 11:21 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
I think it makes perfect sense to suppose that a starving person would want to eat when presented with food. Of course if there are extenuating circumstances (like the greater desire to affect politics or culture through self-starvation) then one may pass the food by. But come on guys, Mephi's point isn't THAT difficult. This whole discussion is about one huge extenuating circumstance. If our will turns into a coin flip in hell and we explain away a few of Jesus' stories, then it might make sense. But a coin flip will is not a free will. If we were able to predict the actions of a free will, it would not be free. The choices of a solidified character may be predicted. Laika's right, there is no reason to assume that God's new adjustment of the circumstances will have any more successful effects than his first failed attempts. Unless, of course, those adjustments remove free will.
Laika said...
Not all probabilities are 50/50. Who knows what those are, but probability is not causality. And his whole thesis hinges on the supposed causality of there being a large probability that all will choose God by faith in an existence where faith is impossible. I agree. To speak of probabilies is this case is misleading. The 50/50 odds are those perceived by an intelligent being who is not controlling, nor knows what is controlling, the chooser. The 50/50 odds are not technically objective truth; they are the best possible guess. Until we know that which controls the will (thereby making it unfree) all we can say is that anything could happen.
The odds of an eathquake happening today may be 1:1000. But if we lose the assumption that the past determines the future, then all we can say is that there is a 50/50 chance. In the case of a free will, we cannot assume that the past (or anything else) determines the future.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 7/25/2005 11:25:53 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/26/2005 12:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid: To make the Israelite illustration applicable to this case we must assume that the Israelites all had free will. I don't. It's not a stretch to believe that the character of the vast majority of the people was solidified to the point where a general prediction could be reasonably made. They had already solidified themselves to following the path of least resistance. When God's way became expedient it was a safe bet they would come back. What we cannot do is assume this of every particular individual who has ever lived or will live. Even with the Israelites the majority never returned to the lord. Most were either killed or assimilated in exile. When God predicted that they would return he was probably not referring to every individual who was ever an Israelite. It seems more likely that he was referring to a few who went through a narrow road or a small gate.
Tom: Once again, I'm totally lost, Sahid, unable to pinpoint just what your point is. My point was that an indeterminate event need not by defintion have an objective probability of only .5 of occuring. It may indeed have an objective probability of great than .5 but less than 1, or less than .5 and greater than 0. Indeterminate events may be 'improbable' or 'probable' objectively speaking. That's my point.
Now, without complicating the matter, 'Israel's return' spoken of by God in Jer. 3 refers to some definable 'event'. Obviously it doesn't require the return to God of every single Jew without exception. But whatever percentage within whatever span of time culminating in whatever form of national revival would constitute 'Israel's return to God', it's still the case that God expected something to happen which didn't happen. It's THIS ( the unfulfilled but justified expectation of an omniscient God) which cannot be explained if it's true that indeterminate events by defintion have only one possible objective probabilty, that of .5. It would leave God, an omniscient knower, with no grounds for ever 'expecting' a particular outcome in indeterminate cases. Objective probabilities of .5 disallow expectations. It would also leave completely unexplained divine surprise. Why would a God who knows there's a .5 chance that an event will occur possibly be surprised when the event turns out a particular way...either way? There's no justification for either 'expectation' (one way or the other) or 'surprise' (one way or the other) in cases of indeterminate events having a probabilty of .5 of occuring. You only get that when the improbable occurs (or the probable fails to occur--same thing). Nite nite, Tom
"doGfood itself is good" SahidPost Edited (TGB) : 7/26/2005 12:15:19 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/26/2005 12:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika,
I see right now that this is a lost cause. If your proof-texting in your last post is representative of the way you interpret scripture (ie literal lake of fire, etc), there's no way I could possibly convince you. And I really don't even want to try. Tell you what. Believe what you want. Seriously. If you think I'm off my rocker, cool. Let's just agree to disagree. We've been over this before. Universalism need NOT be a deal-breaker as far as Christian belief is concerned. That is, one can whole heartedly affirm the historic ecumenical creeds and have a high view of scripture...while being a universalist. So...let's just let it be, yo.
----------------------
Tom:
Yay! Let 'em burn! Burn baby burn. Hmmm, smell their burning flesh...and the logic of our proofs! Gosh, I don't know. It just bothers me that we seemingly feel so good about the truth that hell will remain populated forever, as if we actually WANTED it that way. As much as I love truth, that's one truth I'd weep my way into, kicking and screaming. Guess I wish we were more tearful and less satisfied in being right.
Damn straight, man.
Later,
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/26/2005 2:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Yeah Laika, I can't believe you said it was a literal lake of fire.... wait... you didn't.... You made a point about the basis for Meph's steps. Hmmm. Well let's not discuss it. Discussing things without ad hominem will get us nowhere.
TGB said...
Yay! Let 'em burn! Burn baby burn. Hmmm, smell their burning flesh...and the logic of our proofs! Gosh, I don't know. It just bothers me that we seemingly feel so good about the truth that hell will remain populated forever, as if we actually WANTED it that way.
Yes! Exactly! Let 'em burn! I love the idea of people in hell! That is exactly the point Laika and I were making! Yes! You nailed it! Congradulations on reading my mind! You are very wise! It's not as though I have same logical issues like the ones you earlier mentioned. Nope. I just hate people.
TGB said...
Laika and Sahid, you're missing it on probabilities and causality Ah, Yes! It all makes sense now. Laika, he's saying that the probability doesn't have to be .5. Don't you see? That makes sense. And it solves everything.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 7/26/2005 2:15:13 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/26/2005 7:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid:
Yeah Laika, I can't believe you said it was a literal lake of fire.... wait... you didn't.... You made a point about the basis for Meph's steps. Hmmm. Well let's not discuss it. Discussing things without ad hominem will get us nowhere.
1) The amount of times Laika mentioned the Lake of Fire led me to believe that he really DOES believe in its being literal. At first, I thought it was just to make a point. But with his constantly using it, I figured he does believe it.
2) My serious contention is his proof-texting. This was no attempt at mere ad hominem, dude. The way Laika seems to look at scripture and take different thoughts from here and there (Jeremiah and James!)...and the way he seems to put them together calling it "revelation"...without acknowledging at least some of the ambiguity of his interpretions of those put together scriptures. Moreover, he tries to deconstruct my "tale" with little more than pulled-out, single-line scriptures and talk of the bobbing in the Lake of Fire. Seriously. The simple fact, Sahid, is that he seems bent on not acknowledging the tremendous amount of thought and work that I put into earlier posts describing that process. (There were MULTIPLE threads on this stuff, including the 11 page thread from whence this came. www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=5&p=001&m=52945)
So if Laika don't like my "tale". Cool. He can have that. If he wants to subtlely just deride it (the impression I tend to be getting), cool, he can do that. I won't engage, as I really ain't got time. If he really wants to work through this, maybe we can talk about this face to face with a little more headway. I'd be willing to talk to him about it if he's really interested. Really. But I don't have time to go back and forth on the board...at least not to the extent of what it looks like it would take to get more clarity.
For example...Laika says...
Not all probabilities are 50/50. Who knows what those are, but probability is not causality. And his whole thesis hinges on the supposed causality of there being a large probability that all will choose God by faith in an existence where faith is impossible.
No one is saying that probability = causality. We ARE talking about how the interaction of environmental factors and natural aspects of being can be VERY powerfully influential, though not TOTALLY determinative. And the discussion of WHY faith IS possible in the scenario has been discussed in other threads as we discussed Jerry Walls' position in the Universal Salvation book. It's like NONE of that was even considered.
So, Laika. If really you wanna do this, get all your thoughts together and let's talk. I'll set up an hour or so to dialogue this if you're serious. After we clear the air, we can put it online. If you still aren't convinced, we put it here. If it turns out that you show me that I'm wrong as two left shoes, we put it here. Less time, more light. You know my work number, right? Call or PM me from here.
So...whatever THAT's worth.
*****************************
Tom: (emphasis mine)
My point was that an indeterminate event need not by defintion have an objective probability of only .5 of occuring. It may indeed have an objective probability of great than .5 but less than 1, or less than .5 and greater than 0. Indeterminate events may be 'improbable' or 'probable' objectively speaking. That's my point.
Now, without complicating the matter, 'Israel's return' spoken of by God in Jer. 3 refers to some definable 'event'. Obviously it doesn't require the return to God of every single Jew without exception. But whatever percentage within whatever span of time culminating in whatever form of national revival would constitute 'Israel's return to God', it's still the case that God expected something to happen which didn't happen. It's THIS (the unfulfilled but justified expectation of an omniscient God) which cannot be explained if it's true that indeterminate events by defintion have only one possible objective probabilty, that of .5. It would leave God, an omniscient knower, with no grounds for ever 'expecting' a particular outcome in indeterminate cases. Objective probabilities of .5 disallow expectations. It would also leave completely unexplained divine surprise. Why would a God who knows there's a .5 chance that an event will occur possibly be surprised when the event turns out a particular way...either way? There's no justification for either 'expectation' (one way or the other) or 'surprise' (one way or the other) in cases of indeterminate events having a probabilty of .5 of occuring. You only get that when the improbable occurs (or the probable fails to occur--same thing).
Didn't see this. Good explanation.
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 7/26/2005 7:14:17 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/26/2005 7:39 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Sahid:
Yeah Laika, I can't believe you said it was a literal lake of fire.... wait... you didn't.... You made a point about the basis for Meph's steps. Hmmm. Well let's not discuss it. Discussing things without ad hominem will get us nowhere.
1) The amount of times Laika mentioned the Lake of Fire led me to believe that he really DOES believe in its being literal. At first, I thought it was just to make a point. But with his constantly using it, I figured he does believe it. The Lake of Fire is mentioned in scripture. Whatever it is, the name is pretty descriptive.
But your arbitrary tale has no more compelling reasons to believe than the millions of other arbitrary tales that have been told around the world throughout history.
Do you know what "arbitrary" means? You made your story up.
And you and Tom's argument boils down to, WE wish universalism were true, therefore it must be. (And by implication the rest of us want to see people "burn in hell")
I wish pigs could fly, therefore it must be true.
As for Tom's ramblings about probability, it made no sense to me. Whatever you think about probability, an arbitrarily made up number has as little compelling reason to believe as the rest of your fiction.
Yes, most starving men will eventually eat, given the chance. But some will not (Bobby Sands, remember him?) and it's these some that ruin the whole universalism argument.
Since universalism says God gets 100% compliance, one (1) contrary example destroys it.
Post Edited (Laika) : 7/26/2005 8:07:30 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/26/2005 7:40 AM (GMT -6) | | | By my count Laika mentioned the Lake of Fire six times. It's in Revelation at least five times. By your "reasoning" we should figure that the book of Revelation is taking it to be literal too.
The "proof texting" doesn't directly deconstruct you "tale." It just makes up another contradictory, equally likely, equally groundless story.
You have a very fluid and very convenient understanding of the term "influential." On the one hand something influential does not cause or determine anything, but on the other hand it makes otherwise free agents act in a generally caused or determined way. People have free will but that doesn't mean that God doesn't know their future choices. Now why is this allowed post-mortem when the same is not allowed pre-mortem? Well because influential factors are acting on the free agents. They're all free but ultimately they have no choice. It's a nice little circular argument based on a term that has two contradictory meanings.
Now can we please get back to finding a way to logically condemn as many people as possible to eternal suffering? I can't stand the thought of people getting off the hook just because we weren't fervent in our hatred. Kill kill kill.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/26/2005 10:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: It's THIS (the unfulfilled but justified expectation of an omniscient God) which cannot be explained if it's true that indeterminate events by defintion have only one possible objective probabilty, that of .5. It would leave God, an omniscient knower, with no grounds for ever 'expecting' a particular outcome in indeterminate cases. Objective probabilities of .5 disallow expectations. It would also leave completely unexplained divine surprise. Why would a God who knows there's a .5 chance that an event will occur possibly be surprised when the event turns out a particular way...either way? There's no justification for either 'expectation' (one way or the other) or 'surprise' (one way or the other) in cases of indeterminate events having a probabilty of .5 of occuring. You only get that when the improbable occurs (or the probable fails to occur--same thing).
Mephi: Didn't see this.
Tom: Neither did Sahid or Laika. They think I just pontificated.
Also, Sahid and Laika, I never said or supposed that you in fact enjoy the idea of people being in hell. I'm sure you don't. I'm sure you don't suffer from the sort of attitude I once had (and spoke about above). I just meant that I wished we (I included myself actually) evidenced a bit more agony over the idea and wondered what was wrong with ‘wishing’ universalism were true even if one wasn’t convinced it was, or of hoping that someone came along with a knock-down argument for it. That would temper the debate a bit perhaps. It seems the debate over hell gets far too hot. Knowing that you DO care about the destiny of people is why sometimes the tone of your responses is confusing. But forget I brought any of this into the post.
Laika: But your [Mephi’s] arbitrary tale has no more compelling reasons to believe than the millions of other arbitrary tales that have been told around the world throughout history.
Do you know what "arbitrary" means? You made your story up.
Tom: That’s not what ‘arbitrary’ means. That would make the composition of Jesus' parables ‘arbitrary’ when in fact they’re not. ‘Arbitrary’ means “determined by chance, whim, or impulse; without purpose or reason.” If ‘arbitrary’ means merely 'made up’, as you say, then Doc’s six thesis are all arbitrary and tons of other things you and I both believe are all arbitrary. But they’re not. So long as one has reasons (besides just wanting it to be true) for believing what one does, those beliefs aren’t arbitrary. Do you really think Mephi’s view here has absolutely no biblical or philosophical reasoning whatsoever behind it? I wouldn’t’ say that even if I disagreed.
Laika: And you and Tom's argument boils down to, WE wish universalism were true, therefore it must be. (And by implication the rest of us want to see people "burn in hell").
Tom: I knew I shouldn’t have opened up like I did. Something told me it would be misunderstood this way. But Laika, how can you really think the ONLY reasons Mephi has for believing what he does is that he ‘wishes’ it were true? Come on dude!
Laika: I wish pigs could fly, therefore it must be true.
Tom: If that’s what all Mephi’s posts on this issue boil down to, then I don’t think an hour (or two, or three) doing some face to face would help. After reading everything he’s said about this, saying he’s offered no reason whatsoever for his view except that he’d like it to be true is, well, is astounding. Surely this can’t be what Mephi’s posts amount to for you. Tell me I’m wrong!
Laika: As for Tom's ramblings…
Tom [music playing]: Lord, I was born a rambling man…!
Laika: …about probability, it made no sense to me. Whatever you think about probability, an arbitrarily made up number has as little compelling reason to believe as the rest of your fiction.
Tom: Arghghghgh! Obviously we aren’t the omniscient ones. We wouldn’t always know infallibly whether an indeterminate event was ‘probable’ or ‘improbable’ or 50/50. But believing that there are in fact improbable and probable indeterminate events is so extrreeeeeemly simple I can’t believe you guys are struggling with this.
Laika: Yes, most starving men will eventually eat, given the chance.
Tom: Then you think the probability of a starving man eating food when offered to him is greater than 50/50. It’s probable that he’ll eat. THANK YOU!
Laika: But some will not (Bobby Sands, remember him?) and it's these some that ruin the whole universalism argument.
Tom: Yes, there’s Sands. But there being only one Sands, and only a very very few like him, means that it is improbable that a starving person is a self-starver.
Well, maybe Mephi needs to call his view something other than ‘universalism’. Maybe that’s what’s leading you to think he’s claiming absolute, statistical, unqualified, 100% assurance that everybody will be saved. But at rock bottom he’s not, and he’s said so. He’s said the probability is less than 1. Close, but less. So let’s call it a ‘justified hope’.
Laika: Since universalism says God gets 100% compliance, one (1) contrary example destroys it.
Tom: And since Mephi has said the probability that all choose is not, strictly speaking, 1 (or 100%), you must be talking about somebody else.
OK, break out the beer!
Tom
"doGfood itself is good" Sahid | | Back to Top | | |
| 106 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:31 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 |
|
|