On Changing Minds

[OrdinaryClay]

Do I believe and rely on the testimony of the Holy Spirit. You bet.

 

By this I take it you ascribe divine inspiration to your reading of the Bible?

What my statement means is I believe that the Holy Spirit is testimony to me as an individual. In other words I feel the Holy Spirit testifies to me personally. Do I hear audible voices. No.

 

I don't expect my personal experiences with the Holy Spirit to be evidence for anyone else. It may be, for example to my loved ones, but I don't expect it to be. As I've stated many, many times here the evidence for me is multifaceted just as all evidence in real life is.

[Shyone]

Thanks. Wow, that is dense. I'm still looking for the coup des grace, but I have not found it yet. Did you read it? Perhaps you can point me to the location where Gail definitely counters my claims - a quote maybe?

You're a smart guy. When you see it, you will know, but it will be by your own reasoning that you see that the whole house of cards has already fallen down, and you are flailing trying to keep it up.

 

One day you will follow the evidence, and the evidence will lead you. Right now your pride is blinding you. You're on the defensive, desperate to refute anything, even when you have to use dissimulation, fallacy and misdirection.

 

You are a sophist, and a pharisee.

 

It's going to hit you like a ton of bricks.

 

But not today. It will be in a quiet time, when you area alone with your thoughts.

[NotBlinded]

You have not established that He prevented anyones free choice (a.k.a as direct interferes) by restricting His world choice to only those worlds in which everyone chose some evil. That is the point. Middle Knowledge allows God to choose a world from a large set in which we make free choices. His choosing a world instantiation did not prevent us from making our choice. He has picked, from many possible, a world that someone made a bad choice in. Why? We don't know, but we can presume it is because the other choices were worse due to more free will bad choices from us.

You are saying that our choices were made the instant God chose this world. Our choices were made before we were born. Yet, you are saying that we made these choices before we were born and we were free to make them.

 

Honestly, that makes sense to you? How does that get rid of predetermination?

[Sconnor]

OrdinaryClay,

 

I don't expect my personal experiences with the Holy Spirit to be evidence for anyone else. It may be, for example to my loved ones, but I don't expect it to be. As I've stated many, many times here the evidence for me is multifaceted just as all evidence in real life is.

 

You believe in an invisible omni-present personal christian god based on your own idiosyncratic interpretation of the bible and FAITH. Faith meaning -- believing in something that doesn't have objective evidence or is contrary to the supposed evidences (although you say you have evidence -- you simply settle for the flimsiest of supposed evidences such as bloated rationalizations, subjective reasoning and stunted imaginings.

 

You have NO objective evidence for a personal christian god.

 

If you had objective evidence for ANY of the outlandish christian/god claims you make you would NOT need FAITH.

 

So let's cut to the chase.

 

Please provide objective evidence for Jesus being the resurrected son of god, savior of mankind, as opposed to a piece of fiction based on perhaps a fallible human prophet an/or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths that was constructed over hundreds of years.

 

You're making the assertion -- the onus is upon you to provide objective evidence for your outlandish christian/god claims.

 

I await your mental back-flips and diverging.

 

--S.

[Ouroboros]

The de-conversion WAS the pill that fixed the problem. The de-conversion was THE THING that solved the conflicts and gave peace.

 

How can quiting an undefinable proof-less, non-reality change anything?

By waking you up.

 

Sleeping is nice. Dreaming is nice. But when the dream gets weird, and you wake up, you realize it was only a dream. Now you can live on in real life. It's tough. And it's not as pretty as the dream. But it's real.

[Ouroboros]

Do I believe and rely on the testimony of the Holy Spirit. You bet.

More like the Holy Margarita.

 

Oh! Wait. I get it. You were trying to tell us you're better than us. Ah. Sure. Whatever floats your delusion of grandeur.

[OrdinaryClay]

Thanks. Wow, that is dense. I'm still looking for the coup des grace, but I have not found it yet. Did you read it? Perhaps you can point me to the location where Gail definitely counters my claims - a quote maybe?

I read what I could understand.

 

Here is some:

 

F-conditionals

 

The account given so far of Plantinga's Story of Creation fails to deal with some key issues concerning F-conditionals: their modal status; God's knowledge of them; and whence they derive their truth-values, assuming that they have them at all. Different ways of handling these issues produce different versions of the FWD.

 

A careful examination of the text of Plantinga's several presentations of his FWD would show that he is committed to the following three theses.

 

I. Every F-conditional has a contingent truth-value, that is, is contingency true or contingently false.

 

II. God knows the truth-value of all F-conditionals prior to his creative decision.

 

III. God does not determine the truth-values of F-conditionals.

 

Theses I and II together comprise the doctrine of God's "middle knowledge." Another way of formulating the doctrine of God's middle knowledge is that God foreknows for every diminished possible persons what free actions would be performed were that person to be instantiated.

 

We will hold off giving Plantinga's reasons for I until we consider FWD's based on its rejection. Thesis II logically follows from thesis I, on the assumption that God's omniscience requires that he knows and believes all and only true propositions. According to the Libertarian-type incompatibilist premise in his FWD, it would be inconsistent for God both to determine the truth-value of an F-conditional and actualize its antecedent, which would be analogous to God predetermining a free action by determining both the initial state of the universe and the operant causal laws.

 

If God does not determine the truth-values of the F-conditionals, who or what does? There is an answer to this that is implicit in the platonic ontology employed in Plantinga's FWD. Since possible persons, including diminished possible persons, are sets of abstract properties, they exist in every possible world, as do all abstracts. Abstract entities have both essential and accidental properties. The number two has the property of being even in every possible world but has the property of being Igor's favorite object in only some. Our old friend, diminished possible person DP, being a set of properties, has the property of containing the same properties in every possible world, such as the property of being free with respect to A. However, it also has some accidental properties, among which is the following: being-such-that-if-it-were-instantiated-its-instantiator-would-freely-do-A. In some worlds it has it and in others not. In virtue of this, the F-conditional, that if DP were instantiated, its instantiator would freely do A, is true in some worlds but not others. It is all right to call this funny property of DP a "dispositional property" provided we are clear that it is not a disposition of DP to freely perform A if instantiated (abstract entities, with the possible exception of God, cannot perform actions) but a disposition to have its instantiator freely do A.

 

But what, it will be asked, determines whether a diminished person has one of these funny dispositions? As they used to say in the Bronx, "Don't ask!" Here's where the regress of explanations hits the brick wall of brute, unexplainable contingency. There are no further elephants or tortoises upon whose back this contingency rests. Let us now consider some objections to Plantinga's FWD.

 

According to its Story of Creation the F-conditionals limit God's power in a way similar to that in which fate limits the power of the Greek gods. In both cases there is a force or power above and beyond the control of the individual that limits its powers to do what it wants. The idea that God must be lucky, that he must be dealt a favorable poker hand of F-conditional facts, if he is to be able to create a universe containing moral good sans moral evil, strikes some as blasphemous, as a radical distortion of the orthodox concept of God's omnipotence. While Plantinga's account of omnipotence is not every theist's cup of tea, certainly not that of the great medieval theists, it might be the cup of tea that will prove most digestible and healthy for theism in its effort to construct an adequate defense for God's permitting moral evil.

The first statement in bold is just a bald claim. The free agent was not limited in making the choice they made. The limitation was in which world God chose to instantiate. The person could have produced choices that did not result in there existing worlds for God to choose that resulted in their situation.

 

The second statement in bold seems to agree with me.

 

What you are saying is that before creation, god knew several possible worlds and he chose the one with the least possible evil and the most salvation. God didn't have to choose a world of freewill at all and no one would be capable of moral evil and all would be saved. You limit god's omni's by claiming that he had to create a world full of freewilled people.

Sure God could have created a world with just dogs and cats I suppose. He chose to create free willed creatures. The free willed creatures are the ones who chose to reject Him.

 

I think it silly to begin with anyway because regardless of the conditional that was accepted by god, this world was chosen because he knew the outcome. Back to square one. You are basically saying that moral evil plays a part in freewill in order to get to the grand finale. Then how can you ever hope to have anything within this world changed when God has already chosen the "biblical" version?

I do believe that we as free willed creatures would not always choose God with out suffering. It is our nature. So I don't find it surprising that the world chosen by God ended up having suffering in it. Christ suffered on the cross. We would not have salvation with out His suffering.

[bdp]

'salvation' in your world view is only necessary because 'god' set it up that way. his fault, his problem, so piss on him.

[centauri]

No, the doctrine of Middle Knowledge does deal with the seeming paradox of God's Omniscience/Omnipotence and our free will. This is specifically what it addresses. Take the time to understand Middle Knowledge You may not agree with the doctrine, but you will at least be able to move beyond the simple restatement of your position.

The doctrine does not address the specifics of the passages, it only serves to deflect the problem in an attempt to resolve a paradox.

You haven’t established that God never directly interferes with human choices.

As the article states:

 

“The doctrine of middle knowledge doesn’t take a position on these sorts of questions, but is a doctrine which can be employed creatively to fashion various options.”

 

Using this to fashion creative opinions doesn’t establish anything about free will existing or being valid.

You have not established that He prevented anyones free choice (a.k.a as direct interferes) by restricting His world choice to only those worlds in which everyone chose some evil. That is the point.

People that are predestined to play certain roles before they are born don't have a choice.

Their script was written before they came into being.

The point is that you’re claiming free will when the Bible indicates that predestination and divine manipulation are used to direct at least some human choices.

You've made predestination meaningless and simply assume that God's divine manipulation is always in line with what people would do on their own.

The scripture doesn't indicate that.

It shows God as taking affirmative action to ensure that some humans do certain things.

Divine manipulation wouldn't have been needed if people were always going to do what God wanted.

You have no way of knowing how much of any person's actions are programmed for them by God.

 

Middle Knowledge allows God to choose a world from a large set in which we make free choices. His choosing a world instantiation did not prevent us from making our choice. He has picked, from many possible, a world that someone made a bad choice in. Why? We don't know, but we can presume it is because the other choices were worse due to more free will bad choices from us.

You can presume anything that pleases your senses.

None of this theological musing eliminates the problem of universal free will existing in a creation where predestination and manipulation are practiced.

The term "free will" is itself a flawed phrase.

There is no "free" will when divine punishment results from making an incorrect choice.

[Phanta]

Also, I'm still curious about your gender assignment for God. Upon what do you base it?

 

Phanta

Gal 1:3

(3) Grace be to you, and peace from God the Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

[My bold]

 

Does that bother you?

 

No, thank you for asking. Interesting.

 

Phanta

[NotBlinded]

The first statement in bold is just a bald claim. The free agent was not limited in making the choice they made. The limitation was in which world God chose to instantiate. The person could have produced choices that did not result in there existing worlds for God to choose that resulted in their situation.

Yes, the limitation was in which world god chose. God chose it! You are sitting there telling me that my choices were known in all possible worlds and god chose the one that resulted in the least evil overall. Sooooo...how is it possible that I can now choose differently so I would produce even less evil? How can I choose, now, to be any different than I am? I am still determined by the choices I made, prior to making them obviously. There is indeed "a force or power above and beyond the control of the individual that limits its powers to do what it wants." I had no say in what world God chose for me and I still have no ability to change it. There is no difference. What you are putting forth is the illusion of freewill. Even though you are putting humans in charge of their own destiny by the choices they made, in the timeless vision of god before creation, it is still only an illusion of freewill. At the instant of creation, the deal was sealed. I never really got to make any of the other choices.

 

The second statement in bold seems to agree with me.

Here is the objection. You can read the rest yourself:

 

Instead I want to press an opposite objection—that God cannot consistently do as much as is required by Plantinga's FWD. It will be argued at some length that God, in virtue of having middle knowledge, has a freedom-canceling control over created persons. And because these created middlemen aren't free, the buck of moral blame for seeming moral evils cannot stop with them but must reach through to God, which destroys the FWD's attempt to show how God can escape blame, although not responsibility, for these evils. I will begin by marking the distinction between blame and responsibility.

 

In general, one is responsible for an occurrence that she was fully able to prevent, that is, had the power, opportunity, and necessary knowledge to prevent. God, for example, is responsible for moral evil, since he could have prevented it by electing not to create any free persons. An especially pertinent case is that in which one person delegates some of his power to another but retains the power to revoke the delegated power.3 In a dual control student driver car the instructor can throw a switch that gives the student control over the car but still retains the power to regain control over the car by flipping the switch the other way. If the car should be involved in some foreseeable untoward incident while the student is in control, the instructor, along with the student, is responsible, but it could be that only the student is blameworthy. Whether the instructor shares blame will depend on whether she has a good reason for not having retaken control of the car--for example, the resulting harm was minor and the student can best learn by being free to make mistakes.

 

The relation of God to created free persons is similar. By creating free persons God delegates some of his power to them, but he still retains the power, called "overpower" by Nelson Pike, to rescind their power, either in part or wholly. Because God can withdraw his gift of free will—flip the big switch—he is responsible along with created free persons for the moral evil they cause. But, like the driving instructor, he might have a good excuse that frees him from sharing the blame with those to whom he has delegated some of his power. The FWD supplies such an excuse. God can be responsible but not blameworthy for the evils caused by created beings only if they are free. But, I will now argue, according to the Plantinga Story of Creation, they are not. He never succeeded in flipping the switch that gave them the power to freely control their own lives.

 

Sure God could have created a world with just dogs and cats I suppose. He chose to create free willed creatures. The free willed creatures are the ones who chose to reject Him.

Yes, he did didn't he? His choice, not ours.

I do believe that we as free willed creatures would not always choose God with out suffering. It is our nature. So I don't find it surprising that the world chosen by God ended up having suffering in it. Christ suffered on the cross. We would not have salvation with out His suffering.

You are speaking to people that don't believe Jesus suffering had anything to do with salvation. Salvation from what? The world god chose for us by the choices we made prior to making them? I can't change my belief about this because according to you, this is the world god chose due to my choices. In the other world I may have been a Christian fundamentalist and you could have been a Muslim (we would both be evil ). Oh well, I guess we made our beds, thousands of years ago, before creation, so we have to lie (or is it lay?) in them.

[Phanta]

I do choose to worship God despite not knowing all the details of Him or His plan. I worship God because He is the creator, requires it and deserves to be worshiped. Why is this surprising? To worship anything else would be the pit of foolishness. This is why I quoted Joh 6:68. Read the verse in the context in which it occurs.

 

I'm interested to hear more about your last reason for worshiping God: deserving. Would you mind sharing what you find deserving about God?

 

I don't understand where you are going with this, to be honest.

 

You keep saying that.

 

Phanta

[Shyone]

 

I do believe that we as free willed creatures would not always choose God with out suffering. It is our nature. So I don't find it surprising that the world chosen by God ended up having suffering in it. Christ suffered on the cross. We would not have salvation with out His suffering.

You are speaking to people that don't believe Jesus suffering had anything to do with salvation. Salvation from what? The world god chose for us by the choices we made prior to making them? I can't change my belief about this because according to you, this is the world god chose due to my choices. In the other world I may have been a Christian funamentalist and you could have been a Muslim. Oh well, I guess we made our beds, thousands of years ago, so we have to lie (or is it lay?) in them.

If OC were a Muslim, he would probably quote this:

 

The Koran: The Divorce

[65.12] Allah is He Who created seven heavens, and of the earth the like of them; the decree continues to descend among them, that you may know that Allah has power over all things and that Allah indeed encompasses all things in (His) knowledge.

 

Can't argue with that, now can we?

[Phanta]

This is just another demonstration of a relationship that eludes you. Each of you want personal understanding of your situation, YOUR reasons, but then deny a personal God?

 

People are capable of providing this to one another. MORTALS are capable of it.

 

Phanta

[agnosticator]

No, this is gross: http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/12-01-2010/111621-sheep_human_face-0

 

So that's what a True Christian looks like?

[The-Captain]

What my statement means is I believe that the Holy Spirit is testimony to me as an individual. In other words I feel the Holy Spirit testifies to me personally. Do I hear audible voices. No.

 

I don't expect my personal experiences with the Holy Spirit to be evidence for anyone else.

 

So what do you mean by this?

[agnosticator]

You don't know what the minimum amount of evil is needed in a world with a maximum amount of salvation given free willed agents. It may well have been the case that God needed to allow a certain amount of evil to optimize the good given our free wills. None of us know the details of this dynamic.

 

This "certain amount of evil" is vast and incomprehensible. This "optimized good" seems to be minimal in comparison to the unnecessary and vast evil. Few are chosen; many are wasted (including animals). Why choose a world full of suffering when things were perfect before the fall? A&E were innocent and naive, with zero knowledge of good/evil (morality). That was heaven. Now we have to put all beings through hell on earth just for a few to go to the heaven A&E already had!

 

Life as an experiment or test for salvation seems to be alot to ask of God's playthings. Better be careful what you choose with your "freewill"!

Adam and Eve made their choice just as we all do. Read my response here along with the article I posted a link to.

 

God can both know what you would freely choose, and exercise His omnipotence to bring about any world that is feasible.

 

 

So God could not be Omnipotent enough to bring about a world with significantly less suffering and much more "optimized good"? This is not feasible for His All Powerful God Abilities?

 

God created a "perfect earth" for A&E, and also a perfect heaven, only to be limited in what kind of earth there can be in the present. This would make a very obtuse and poor movie plot. Unless one is on drugs while watching the movie. Then it may make for a so-so comedy.

[Phanta]

I do believe that we as free willed creatures would not always choose God with out suffering. It is our nature. So I don't find it surprising that the world chosen by God ended up having suffering in it. Christ suffered on the cross. We would not have salvation with out His suffering.

 

So, why the choice to visit with us here? What interests you about posting on this ex-Christian site? Who invited you?

 

Phanta

[OrdinaryClay]

I do choose to worship God despite not knowing all the details of Him or His plan. I worship God because He is the creator, requires it and deserves to be worshiped. Why is this surprising? To worship anything else would be the pit of foolishness. This is why I quoted Joh 6:68. Read the verse in the context in which it occurs.

 

I'm interested to hear more about your last reason for worshiping God: deserving. Would you mind sharing what you find deserving about God?

He is the Creator of all things. He is Holy. He is righteous. He is Love. He has provided a path to salvation through His son Jesus Christ that requires nothing but faith. He has provided a way for us to engage a relationship with Him for all eternity. I can not even imagine not worshipping Him. My inner soul yearns to worship Him. I prostrate myself spiritually, intellectually and physically before Him.

 

Rev 4:8

(8) And each one of the four living creatures had six wings about him, and within being full of eyes. And they had no rest day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God, the Almighty, who was and is and is to come.

 

 

I don't understand where you are going with this, to be honest.

 

You keep saying that.

 

Phanta

Hm ... sorry. I did not realize I repeated myself. Did you answer?

[Phanta]

I do choose to worship God despite not knowing all the details of Him or His plan. I worship God because He is the creator, requires it and deserves to be worshiped. Why is this surprising? To worship anything else would be the pit of foolishness. This is why I quoted Joh 6:68. Read the verse in the context in which it occurs.

 

I'm interested to hear more about your last reason for worshiping God: deserving. Would you mind sharing what you find deserving about God?

He is the Creator of all things. He is Holy. He is righteous. He is Love. He has provided a path to salvation through His son Jesus Christ that requires nothing but faith. He has provided a way for us to engage a relationship with Him for all eternity. I can not even imagine not worshipping Him. My inner soul yearns to worship Him. I prostrate myself spiritually, intellectually and physically before Him.

 

Ok. Thank you for describing your experience.

 

Would you be willing to explain to me, please, what qualities make Jesus "son" in relation to God?

 

Rev 4:8

(8) And each one of the four living creatures had six wings about him, and within being full of eyes. And they had no rest day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God, the Almighty, who was and is and is to come.

 

I don't understand where you are going with this, to be honest.

 

You keep saying that.

 

Phanta

Hm ... sorry. I did not realize I repeated myself. Did you answer?

 

*chuckle* Ya didn't really ask a question there, Clay.

 

I'm having a conversation. Sussing you out. Probing.

 

Phanta

[OrdinaryClay]

I do believe that we as free willed creatures would not always choose God with out suffering. It is our nature. So I don't find it surprising that the world chosen by God ended up having suffering in it. Christ suffered on the cross. We would not have salvation with out His suffering.

 

So, why the choice to visit with us here? What interests you about posting on this ex-Christian site? Who invited you?

 

Phanta

An atheist told me about the site. He said I should come here and engage in debate.

 

I've spent a lot of time on many atheist sites. I want to hear why people don't believe. I want to hear what people think about Christianity. I'm compelled to respond when falsehoods are stated about the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and His Christ. I'm not quiet. I write mostly for the people who read but may not participate in the discussions. I believe very, very deeply in the reality of what I speak.

 

Eze 33:2-9

[Legion]

And now for a completely random musical interlude...

 

[Phanta]

I do believe that we as free willed creatures would not always choose God with out suffering. It is our nature. So I don't find it surprising that the world chosen by God ended up having suffering in it. Christ suffered on the cross. We would not have salvation with out His suffering.

 

So, why the choice to visit with us here? What interests you about posting on this ex-Christian site? Who invited you?

 

Phanta

An atheist told me about the site. He said I should come here and engage in debate.

 

I've spent a lot of time on many atheist sites.

 

Are you reluctant to say who?

 

I want to hear why people don't believe.

 

What interests you about that?

 

I want to hear what people think about Christianity.

 

What kind of thoughts about Christianity interest you?

 

 

I'm compelled to respond when falsehoods are stated about the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and His Christ. I'm not quiet.

 

By the verse you cited, I understand that you relate yourself to the watchman and speak the words you speak about your faith as a warning for people who believe differently, as a way to keep your soul in good stead. Is that right?

 

I write mostly for the people who read but may not participate in the discussions. I believe very, very deeply in the reality of what I speak.

 

I am getting that.

 

In which country did you spend your youth? Were you part of a Christian community there?

 

Phanta

[par4dcourse]

And now for a completely random musical interlude...

 

 

Thank you, Legion. We now return you to our regularly scheduled discussion "How many flips can an apologist turn"

[Legion]

I believe very, very deeply in the reality of what I speak.

I believe very deeply that we have only each other to stave off the near unbearable vastness of space-time. I believe we have very little understanding of and even less control over the world we find ourselves in. If you still need Jesus then I say go for it. But when you insist that your illusions are reality you look a bit desperate to me.