The Problem of evoL

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm not sure what the entire message is at this point....which is my point.  Thx.

 

All you need to be sure of is what you claimed, Ed.

 

You claimed that grace is an absolute.

 

Do you still stand by that claim?

 

 

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

All you need to be sure of is what you claimed, Ed.

 

You claimed that grace is an absolute.

 

Do you still stand by that claim?

 

 

This is why we don't visit Walter..

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

This is why we don't visit Walter..

 

You remind me of my wife, Ed.

 

I love her dearly, but she's like a butterfly.  Flitting from thought to thought and from subject to subject and saying whatever comes into her mind at that given moment without any remembering what she said five minutes ago.  She's lively and intuitive and creative, but she can't put even the simplest logical argument together. 

 

We like to do word puzzles, crosswords and codewords and such like.  Each of us plays to our own strengths and we work well together.  She has flashes of inspiration and I patiently work through the logic of the game.  It's fascinating to watch her try and hold the thread of what she's doing for more than thirty seconds.  Some of these games must be played sequentially, completing one step before proceeding to the next.  But Audrey can only work partway through a sequence before something else catches her eye and she dashes off on that new tangent, leaving the sequence uncompleted.  By the time I've reminded her of what she was doing and the sequence she should have completed she's totally forgotten about it, forgotten where she was and forgotten the logic she was employing.  It then falls to me to remind her of these things so that she can resume where she left off.

 

Having said that, Audrey can intuitively make connections that I cannot see and can see patterns where I see none.  So, when we are stuck in a certain game, she's usually the one to find a new angle.

 

Perhaps your mind is somewhat like hers, Ed?  You see things and believe them to obvious to others, but you cannot articulate how and why you see them.  So, when asked to explain how and why you saw them, you cannot.  And this leads to irritation when you are asked to explain what you mean.  Please believe me when I say that I do not seek to irritate you or that I go out of my way to make things awkward for you here.  

 

But try to see things from our point of view.  We cannot hope to understand what you think you see and the connections you believe are obvious unless you can explain them to us.  And if you don't possess the means to explain yourself clearly, precisely and logically, then the result is mutual incomprehension.  We can't understand you and you can't understand why we can't understand you.  And so the carousel goes round and round and round again.  Thread after thread.  Year in and year out.  Over and over again.  Never getting anywhere.

 

Hence the Prof's comment about still waiting for you to explain yourself since 2013.  Whenever you're ready...

 

 

 

I have no answers, btw Ed.

 

But do you think my analysis of the abiding failure of communication between you and us is on target?

 

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

On 6/15/2022 at 8:01 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Indeed, sir.  I have been waiting for you since I arrived here in 2013.  Whenever you're ready...

Let me follow up please sir.  Essentially we are describing grace.  If you wait on me, or I wait on someone else, isn't that grace?  And ultimately, while we are waiting, isn't trust vitally important?  Not that that makes Christianity wholly true, but those are kinda the main themes, no?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Let me follow up please sir.  Essentially we are describing grace.  If you wait on me, or I wait on someone else, isn't that grace?  And ultimately, while we are waiting, isn't trust vitally important?  Not that that makes Christianity wholly true, but those are kinda the main themes, no?

If we can offer grace and trust to each other, and I believe we can, then what need have we of any kind of savior or god?  Are we not enough?

[Edgarcito]

6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If we can offer grace and trust to each other, and I believe we can, then what need have we of any kind of savior or god?  Are we not enough?

"Enough" suggests a rating or comparison.  Often I don't think we are enough.  Again, our limits, our inabilities, our subjectivity, don't allow us to define "enough"....hence some potentially perfect level.  Good question.  But, with that said, casual observation pretty much says, no, we aren't, by practice and default.

[Edgarcito]

In the sense that we are unique individuals, yeah, I think we are enough.  I just think that's different than our abilities.  Apparently we are just where we exist....the ends of the bell curve reaching out to more gracefilled people, the other end, less filled....

[TheRedneckProfessor]

On 6/21/2022 at 2:37 PM, Edgarcito said:

"Enough" suggests a rating or comparison.  Often I don't think we are enough.  Again, our limits, our inabilities, our subjectivity, don't allow us to define "enough"....hence some potentially perfect level.  Good question.  But, with that said, casual observation pretty much says, no, we aren't, by practice and default.

I think there is a difference between not being enough versus not using our full capacity to be enough.  In practice, even the most "enough" of us fall short; but I don't think it necessarily follows that we do not have "enough" as an intrinsic and instinctive part of our evolutionary development.  Rather there is also a self-preservation instinct that conflicts, and often out-competes, with our enough-ness.

[walterpthefirst]

On 6/21/2022 at 6:37 PM, Edgarcito said:

"Enough" suggests a rating or comparison.  Often I don't think we are enough.  Again, our limits, our inabilities, our subjectivity, don't allow us to define "enough"....hence some potentially perfect level.  Good question.  But, with that said, casual observation pretty much says, no, we aren't, by practice and default.

 

Ed,

 

Here you express your opinion that human grace is not enough.

 

But are you also making an argument?

 

You use the word 'hence' and then go on to invoke the notion of perfect grace.

 

And that looks like you are making an argument for the existence of perfect grace.

 

Besides your personal opinion, how does human grace being limited and imperfect suggest or imply the existence of perfect grace?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.  

[Edgarcito]

On 6/22/2022 at 2:22 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I think there is a difference between not being enough versus not using our full capacity to be enough.  In practice, even the most "enough" of us fall short; but I don't think it necessarily follows that we do not have "enough" as an intrinsic and instinctive part of our evolutionary development.  Rather there is also a self-preservation instinct that conflicts, and often out-competes, with our enough-ness.

I think that's right.  But the quest seems to still exist....to become the solvent and not the solute.  Josh wants to become one as the solvent, per our debate, as do many.  Christianity proposes the Cross/Christ/ where one can gain access through Christ, moving to new, the solvent side of the membrane.... noting that the solvent exists with us regardless.  Uncertain of why we are so scared of death.  That we weren't, we might better dissolve.  Too much here, it fits too well, to ignore J.

[Edgarcito]

On 6/22/2022 at 2:48 PM, walterpthefirst said:

 

Ed,

 

Here you express your opinion that human grace is not enough.

 

But are you also making an argument?

 

You use the word 'hence' and then go on to invoke the notion of perfect grace.

 

And that looks like you are making an argument for the existence of perfect grace.

 

Besides your personal opinion, how does human grace being limited and imperfect suggest or imply the existence of perfect grace?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.  

Not sure I have anything other than anecdotal evidence.... those brief glimpses of enough, our actions sufficiently joined with "God" that the outcome and feelings are indistinguishable......i.e., the perfect blend of iced sweet tea, lol.   

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Not sure I have anything other than anecdotal evidence.... those brief glimpses of enough, our actions sufficiently joined with "God" that the outcome and feelings are indistinguishable......i.e., the perfect blend of iced sweet tea, lol.   

 

That's refreshingly honest of you, Ed.

 

Too often theists insist that their anecdotal evidence for god counts as much more than that.

 

Because they've experienced something, those experiences must apply to everyone, everywhere.

 

But you appear to realize that this isn't so.

 

Good for you!   

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

10 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 Uncertain of why we are so scared of death.  That we weren't, we might better dissolve.  Too much here, it fits too well, to ignore J.

 

It seems that dissolves as we age.  It seems that most people near deaths door, christian or not, seem to accept death, and some, christian or not, even want to speed it up.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

20 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I think that's right.  But the quest seems to still exist....to become the solvent and not the solute.  Josh wants to become one as the solvent, per our debate, as do many.  Christianity proposes the Cross/Christ/ where one can gain access through Christ, moving to new, the solvent side of the membrane.... noting that the solvent exists with us regardless.  Uncertain of why we are so scared of death.  That we weren't, we might better dissolve.  Too much here, it fits too well, to ignore J.

Sure.  If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.  But this brings us back to not really needing a god or a cross in order to accomplish the work of grace and trust, at least at the personal level, which is really the level that ultimately defines us as individuals.  Enoughness versus unwillingness.

[Edgarcito]

On 6/27/2022 at 8:06 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Sure.  If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.  But this brings us back to not really needing a god or a cross in order to accomplish the work of grace and trust, at least at the personal level, which is really the level that ultimately defines us as individuals.  Enoughness versus unwillingness.

I'm gathering you would argue "grace" relative to the next individual......as in he or she is grace-filled, graceful....the component grace as a function of humanity.  Where Christianity offers it as a saving feature, through Christ, to our existence.  Gonna have to ponder this a bit.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm gathering you would argue "grace" relative to the next individual......as in he or she is grace-filled, graceful....the component grace as a function of humanity.  Where Christianity offers it as a saving feature, through Christ, to our existence.  Gonna have to ponder this a bit.

 

You could always ponder this using Occam's Razor, Ed.

 

"It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred."

From the Wiki page about Occam's Razor. 

 

Try applying it to the two models under discussion.

 

Grace as a function of humanity.

 

and...

 

Grace as a saving feature, given by god to humanity.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Another way of looking at Walt's suggestion above is to look at a scenario in which I have done you wrong.  In this scenario, we have two possible means of redressing the wrong I have done. 

 

The first way is for me to admit that I was wrong, acknowledge the specific wrong, and offer to make amends.  My grace, my enoughness, allows me to do this.  You, then, have a choice of forgiveness, absolution, both, or neither.  Your grace, your enoughness, will guide you to make the best decision.

 

Alternatively, I have done you wrong; but rather than seek to address the wrong between you and I, I appeal to jesus and the cross for forgiveness and absolution.  I may, or may not, come directly to you; because the grace and enoughness of the cross is enough for me and overrides whatever grace I might have otherwise shown.  You, in turn, go to the cross and jesus seeking to forgive.  You, also, may or may not come directly to me; and for the same reasons.

 

Which of these is the simpler solution to the problem at hand?  A meeting of grace between the two of us; or both of us having an inanimate intermediary between us that may not ever result in us talking about the situation and truly resolving it?  Which solution is more likely to result in the kind of grace and enoughness that you have been longing for and preaching about since I've known you?  

[Johnny]

On 6/2/2022 at 5:15 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I had an epiphany this afternoon whilst arguing in the Twitter-verse.  When presented with Epicurus' Problem of Evil, most people want to say that god is able to prevent evil but free will blah blah... which amounts to able but not willing. 

 

Here's the lightening bolt, though.  When you present the Problem of Evil to a person, you are essentially asking them to choose between a god of power and a god of love.  And which god they choose speaks a lot about their own personal character.  Hmm...

 

What might it say that most choose the god of power?  Serious question, by the way; not rhetorical. 

For some reason I'm not seeing my reply to this. Since I'm new to the forum I may have done something wrong so I'll try again. 

 

"When you present the Problem of Evil to a person, you are essentially asking them to choose between a god of power and a god of love."

 

I'm not making a choice between the two. God did give freedom of will and does not have the power to suddenly not have it. God did create spiritual beings and physical beings. That is quite powerful to me. God is love and gave us all choices. If we He created robots with no free choice that is no loving. Lucifer made the choice to go against God and so did a third of the angels. 

 

"...most people want to say that god is able to prevent evil but free will blah blah... which amounts to able but not willing. "

 

Are you going to go by what people say or what God says? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, Johnny said:

For some reason I'm not seeing my reply to this. Since I'm new to the forum I may have done something wrong so I'll try again. 

 

"When you present the Problem of Evil to a person, you are essentially asking them to choose between a god of power and a god of love."

 

I'm not making a choice between the two. God did give freedom of will and does not have the power to suddenly not have it. God did create spiritual beings and physical beings. That is quite powerful to me. God is love and gave us all choices. If we He created robots with no free choice that is no loving. Lucifer made the choice to go against God and so did a third of the angels. 

 

"...most people want to say that god is able to prevent evil but free will blah blah... which amounts to able but not willing. "

 

Are you going to go by what people say or what God says? 

And the 10-year-old girl who gets raped, what about her free will?  What does god's refusal to intervene tell us about himself?  If he consistently enables evil, then he is also evil.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 minutes ago, Johnny said:

I'm not making a choice between the two. God did give freedom of will and does not have the power to suddenly not have it.

Yes.  You are.  You may be phrasing it differently; but ultimately you have chosen able but not willing.  

[Johnny]

42 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

And the 10-year-old girl who gets raped, what about her free will?  What does god's refusal to intervene tell us about himself?  If he consistently enables evil, then he is also evil.

You can make up what you want. A whole lot of people do. I'd rather see what the bible says before casting blame. Interesting too that you have the ability call what is fair and evil. By what authority do you speak? Do you believe this all came about on its own and out of all the mere chances you came along somehow fully knowing from your brain that came from chaos to you what is good and what is evil? If you believe that, it alone shows you care nothing much about truth and you should not be looked at as a source of wisdom and honesty. 

 

I put in this vid before that stops me from doing a lot of writing that explains the reason for evil in the present age and in the future will be done away with.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Do you believe this all came about on its own and out of all the mere chances you came along somehow fully knowing from your brain that came from chaos to you what is good and what is evil?

 

Johnny,

 

You persist in claiming that the universe 'came about', but I have already shown you that science does not make this claim.

 

So, is your claim a faith-based one based on scripture and not a scientific one?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Johnny said:

You can make up what you want. A whole lot of people do. I'd rather see what the bible says before casting blame. Interesting too that you have the ability call what is fair and evil.

You seem to have missed the point of this entire thread, and certainly of my post concerning child rape.

 

1 hour ago, Johnny said:

By what authority do you speak?

By my own authority as a man and a member of the human race.  By what authority do you speak?

 

1 hour ago, Johnny said:

Do you believe this all came about on its own and out of all the mere chances you came along somehow fully knowing from your brain that came from chaos to you what is good and what is evil?

No.  Do you?

 

1 hour ago, Johnny said:

If you believe that, it alone shows you care nothing much about truth and you should not be looked at as a source of wisdom and honesty

I'd recommend keeping your ad hominems to a minimum around here.  They are entertaining, to be sure; but they do nothing to support your arguments or strengthen your position. 

[Johnny]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You seem to have missed the point of this entire thread, and certainly of my post concerning child rape.

You said, "And the 10-year-old girl who gets raped, what about her free will?  What does god's refusal to intervene tell us about himself?  If he consistently enables evil, then he is also evil."

 

The vid did cover this. We have free will. God does not control us. When people want to be evil they have that freedom of will to do so. Yet you make it God's fault with..."What does god's refusal to intervene tell us about himself?

 

I'm not the one missing things here.

 

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

By my own authority as a man and a member of the human race.  By what authority do you speak?

A member of the human race that you think God had no part of bringing into existence. As I wrote...By what authority do you speak? Do you believe this all came about on its own and out of all the mere chances you came along somehow fully knowing from your brain that came from chaos to you what is good and what is evil? If you believe that, it alone shows you care nothing much about truth and you should not be looked at as a source of wisdom and honesty. 

 

What stopped you from telling me how you came about? You think this always existed then came into forming the universe that somehow ended up with such fine-tuning for life that would be impossible, then you believe life came about on its own which is impossible, and kept on duplicating itself somehow then went to sexual reproduction forming us. Sexual intercourse is 'fun' but the reproduction part of it that makes us, NO WAY can that have come together all on its own. So you're the human race that you cannot give evidence for how you think came along. You have to admit, since you came about by mere chances out of chaos, how would you know anything for sure? It's a legit question? 

 

Don't get me wrong, I HATE the scum that get away with their evil, but without a higher authority setting the standard of morality, morals are just subjective. 

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  Do you?

So then give evidence how you came about. 

 

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'd recommend keeping your ad hominems to a minimum around here.  They are entertaining, to be sure; but they do nothing to support your arguments or strengthen your position. 

It's NOT an ad hominem, you believe that you came about by impossible means. It was not directed at all. You just happened to come about in an impossible way that we have enough knowledge to know it's impossible. You don't even want to claim the law of biogenesis. That would stop any of this even from starting and natural selection can't even get going. Take responsibility for what you believe and don't blame me for it. I'm just bring it out. You want to laugh at God as the reason, but you can't produce the evidence to make it a laugh. 

[Astreja]

8 hours ago, Johnny said:

Are you going to go by what people say or what God says? 

 

People, of course.  Except, perhaps, the people who wrote the books of the Bible, because among themselves they managed to come up with a completely unlikable protagonist and had the audacity to call it "good."