Faith, Logic, and Freedom

[RankStranger]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

I do see God as a 'who'.  But not a 'who' like any other 'who'.  We're talking about a 'who' who created the universe as we know it.  A 'who' who created ALL religions.  A 'who' who created everything that's good... and everything that's evil.  A 'who' so vast and incomprehensible that I'm not even an ant by comparison.  

 

 

As far as the science goes, the jury is still out on the question of whether the universe came into existence or has always existed in one form or another.

 

I think that question is sortof moot since time isn't a constant.  

[RankStranger]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

The bible holds him accountable.  Do you have any comment about that - apart from claiming that god doesn't need to be bound by its pages?

 

Can you clarify this a bit?  How does the Bible hold God accountable?  

 

Do you mean through Jesus' death and resurrection?

 

 

 

No, it's in Romans.

 

8 : 18 - 21

 

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 

19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 

20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 

21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

 

11 : 28 - 32

 

28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 

29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 

30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 

31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 

32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

 

 

It was god's will to subject his creation to frustration by binding Adam and Eve's will, forcing them to disobey him.

 

The Fall and all the suffering that came from it was caused by god and not them and not by Satan either.

 

So, the bible itself holds god accountable.

 

Just so long as you take it as authoritative, that is.

 

 

 

Who wrote the book of Romans?  Paul?  Allegedly?  I don't see the words of God in your question.  I see the words of Paul.

 

Do I get to be a Christian without taking these words of Paul both seriously and literally?  Or does your theology allow me to skirt by, only taking Paul seriously... but not literally?

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

 

Who wrote the book of Romans?  Paul?  Allegedly?  I don't see the words of God in your question.  I see the words of Paul.

 

Do I get to be a Christian without taking these words of Paul both seriously and literally?  Or does your theology allow me to skirt by, only taking Paul seriously... but not literally?

 

You are barking up the wrong tree here, RS.

 

Now that I understand your take on scripture my position has changed.  I can no longer play Devil's Advocate from the position of biblical inerrancy, because you do not hold to that position yourself.  So, if I was somehow implying you could only be a Christian by taking scripture literally, that has changed too.

 

Oh and I have no theology or any right to set limits on what you can or cannot do here. 

 

However, the Mods do have secular power over all of us members.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

I think that question is sortof moot since time isn't a constant.  

 

Agreed. 

 

In Einsteinian physics there is no absolute framework for either time or space.  Everything is relative.

 

But scientists take this into account in their theories of a singular universe (the Big Bang) or a cyclic universe (such as Ekpyrotic theory or Conformal Cyclic Cosmology) so my point stands.

 

We are currently unable to say if the universe is singular or not.

 

Since the claim that it had a creator requires it to have had a beginning and we can't say if it did, it therefore logically follows that this claim is unsupported by any current evidence.

[RankStranger]

21 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

You are barking up the wrong tree here, RS.

 

Now that I understand your take on scripture my position has changed.  I can no longer play Devil's Advocate from the position of biblical inerrancy, because you do not hold to that position yourself.  So, if I was somehow implying you could only be a Christian by taking scripture literally, that has changed too.

 

Oh and I have no theology or any right to set limits on what you can or cannot do here. 

 

However, the Mods do have secular power over all of us members.

 

Oh yeah.  Our illustrious mods have proven that they have the power to decimate this whole forum over the course of several years. 

 

I'm not clear on why you are bringing the mods up though.  Do you think I've broken some rule here?  I think this has been a good discussion.  Don't you?

 

 

11 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Agreed. 

 

In Einsteinian physics there is no absolute framework for either time or space.  Everything is relative.

 

But scientists take this into account in their theories of a singular universe (the Big Bang) or a cyclic universe (such as Ekpyrotic theory or Conformal Cyclic Cosmology) so my point stands.

 

We are currently unable to say if the universe is singular or not.

 

Since the claim that it had a creator requires it to have had a beginning and we can't say if it did, it therefore logically follows that this claim is unsupported by any current evidence.

 

If you're stepping outside the universe, time doesn't really mean anything to me.  Maybe I'm not edumucated enough.

 

And I never claimed to have evidence for my faith.  It wouldn't be faith if that was required.

[walterpthefirst]

Generally speaking I only answer questions that I like, and that I find interesting.  I don't care whether you think I should answer a particular question, nor do I care how you think I ought to answer it.  But I'm glad that we can continue this conversation.

 

 

Thank you for clarifying this.

 

Mind you, now that you've clearly stated your position on the answering of questions, in the future other members may well believe that you of using this stance to avoid answering questions that you don't like or that challenge your beliefs.

 

If you invoke your 'I don't find this question interesting enough to answer it' rule to do this, they may well suspect you of debating in bad faith.  Of course, if you just don't care what other members think of your conduct, then so be it.

 

But I'm just an ordinary member and not a Moderator. 

 

I don't get to define what is acceptable conduct in this forum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

I'll try again... maybe this will be a little more clear:  I care that God has created everything, including suffering and evil, per Isaiah 45:7.  I think it's an important thing to understand.  But I don't care in the sense of holding God 'responsible' or anything of the sort.  See my reasoning regarding holding the Universe responsible.  Swap the word 'universe' for 'God'.  Now you understand my reasoning.

 

 

I don't really understand how you can treat the universe and god as equivalent in this argument, RS.

 

Unless you have evidence that the universe is conscious and aware and knows the difference between good and evil?

 

You seem to be comparing apples with oranges.

[RankStranger]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Generally speaking I only answer questions that I like, and that I find interesting.  I don't care whether you think I should answer a particular question, nor do I care how you think I ought to answer it.  But I'm glad that we can continue this conversation.

 

 

Thank you for clarifying this.

 

Mind you, now that you've clearly stated your position on the answering of questions, in the future other members may well believe that you of using this stance to avoid answering questions that you don't like or that challenge your beliefs.

 

If you invoke your 'I don't find this question interesting enough to answer it' rule to do this, they may well suspect you of debating in bad faith.  Of course, if you just don't care what other members think of your conduct, then so be it.

 

But I'm just an ordinary member and not a Moderator. 

 

I don't get to define what is acceptable conduct in this forum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again you bring up the Mods.  It really chaps your ass when you can't force people to answer the questions you want, framed the way you want, huh?

 

Maybe the mods can do it for you 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1.  I'm persuaded that God is infinity + 1 large.

 

2.  I don't think God's creation of human evolution is personal either.

 

 

Are we ready for that 'who' discussion yet?

 

 

 

We can have that 'who' discussion any time you like RS.  Though you will have to bear with the fact that is late in the evening here.  I may not get round to responding to everything you say today.

 

 

Q.  

Is # 1 a joke or a serious reply?  I ask because some people think that infinity is just a very big number that 1 can be added to.  I'm not implying anything about your understanding here, btw.  Infinity is a slippery concept which I struggle with as much as anyone else.  

[RankStranger]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

I'll try again... maybe this will be a little more clear:  I care that God has created everything, including suffering and evil, per Isaiah 45:7.  I think it's an important thing to understand.  But I don't care in the sense of holding God 'responsible' or anything of the sort.  See my reasoning regarding holding the Universe responsible.  Swap the word 'universe' for 'God'.  Now you understand my reasoning.

 

 

I don't really understand how you can treat the universe and god as equivalent in this argument, RS.

 

Unless you have evidence that the universe is conscious and aware and knows the difference between good and evil?

 

You seem to be comparing apples with oranges.

 

Tell you what Walter.  Bring up the Mods one more time, and I won't speak to you again.  That should keep you nice and safe from discussions with real humans who don't see things your way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

Again you bring up the Mods.  It really chaps your ass when you can't force people to answer the questions you want, framed the way you want, huh?

 

Maybe the mods can do it for you 

 

 

 

Not so.

 

I just expect people who have nothing to hide and who are debating in good faith not to baulk at answering questions.

 

Perhaps I should revise my expectations?   (Rhetorical.)

[RankStranger]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Not so.

 

I just expect people who have nothing to hide and who are debating in good faith not to baulk at answering questions.

 

Perhaps I should revise my expectations?   (Rhetorical.)

 

I've answered your question more than once.  Sorry you don't like the answer.

[walterpthefirst]

5 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

Tell you what Walter.  Bring up the Mods one more time, and I won't speak to you again.  That should keep you nice and safe from discussions with real humans who don't see things your way.

 

 

What you quoted made no reference to that which I must not mention.

 

I was simply pointing out that, unless you can present evidence that the universe and god are equivalent in terms of consciousness and morality, your argument is flawed.

 

They are not equivalent.

 

And therefore you are committing the logical fallacy of false equivalence.

 

False equivalence - Wikipedia

[walterpthefirst]

If you're stepping outside the universe, time doesn't really mean anything to me.  Maybe I'm not edumucated enough.

 

 

The cosmological theories I mentioned do not step outside of time.

 

 

 

And I never claimed to have evidence for my faith.  It wouldn't be faith if that was required.

 

 

Accepted.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

I've answered your question more than once.  Sorry you don't like the answer.

 

Not a problem.

 

I have revised my expectations.

[RankStranger]

Walter, I'll get back with you if I once again decide that you may be capable a good faith discussion.

 

Until then, have a blessed day 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, RankStranger said:

Walter, I'll get back with you if I once again decide that you may be capable a good faith discussion.

 

Until then, have a blessed day 

 

 

On the off chance of that happening maybe we can get round to tackling the 'who' discussion?  (Rhetorical)

 

And we could also see about rectifying your false god/universe equivalence argument?  (Also rhetorical.)

[RankStranger]

I've thought about it a bit, Walter.  And I see no reason why you're not capable of a good faith discussion.  You seem like an honest guy in spite of your bad habits.  I think there's just a couple of things you don't understand.

 

1.  I'll remind you (we have discussed this before) that I am not interested in formal debate.  If that's what you need from me, then we have nothing to discuss.  Consider this a rule anywhere on this forum other than the Colosseum- should I ever be bored enough to post there.  I am not interested in formal debate, and I have no reason whatsoever to abide by formal debate rules.

 

2.  I think you don't understand what other folks will see in our discussion up to this point.  Threatening to have a mod punish me if I don't answer questions to your liking?  I don't know how people are in Britain, but I'd be surprised if you impress a single American with a chicken-shit move like that.  Whatever cause you think you're advancing with a tactic like that, I'd advise you to re-think what you're actually accomplishing.  

 

3.  I'll remind you that if you ever bring up mods again, particularly in the context of trying to get me to answer a question whose framing I have no reason to accept, then our discussion is permanently done.  Don't want to have a discussion with me?  Say the word 'mod' and you have your wish.

[RankStranger]

8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

1.  I'm persuaded that God is infinity + 1 large.

 

2.  I don't think God's creation of human evolution is personal either.

 

 

Are we ready for that 'who' discussion yet?

 

 

 

We can have that 'who' discussion any time you like RS.  Though you will have to bear with the fact that is late in the evening here.  I may not get round to responding to everything you say today.

 

 

Q.  

Is # 1 a joke or a serious reply?  I ask because some people think that infinity is just a very big number that 1 can be added to.  I'm not implying anything about your understanding here, btw.  Infinity is a slippery concept which I struggle with as much as anyone else.  

 

This is at least 50% serious.  It's hard to quantify that sort of thing.

 

It's hard to quantify infinity too.  Or so I'm told.  I've never seen one, but I have faith that it's out there.

[walterpthefirst]

7 hours ago, RankStranger said:

I've thought about it a bit, Walter.  And I see no reason why you're not capable of a good faith discussion.  You seem like an honest guy in spite of your bad habits.  I think there's just a couple of things you don't understand.

 

1.  I'll remind you (we have discussed this before) that I am not interested in formal debate.  If that's what you need from me, then we have nothing to discuss.  Consider this a rule anywhere on this forum other than the Colosseum- should I ever be bored enough to post there.  I am not interested in formal debate, and I have no reason whatsoever to abide by formal debate rules.

 

2.  I think you don't understand what other folks will see in our discussion up to this point.  Threatening to have a mod punish me if I don't answer questions to your liking?  I don't know how people are in Britain, but I'd be surprised if you impress a single American with a chicken-shit move like that.  Whatever cause you think you're advancing with a tactic like that, I'd advise you to re-think what you're actually accomplishing.  

 

3.  I'll remind you that if you ever bring up mods again, particularly in the context of trying to get me to answer a question whose framing I have no reason to accept, then our discussion is permanently done.  Don't want to have a discussion with me?  Say the word 'mod' and you have your wish.

 

And there's the difference between RS, that'll probably make constructive discussion an impossibility.

 

You'll only engage with me on your terms and now you've listed what they are.

 

Whereas, I was simply asking you to abide by the general principles of the free exchange of questions and answers that is the norm in this forum and which you happily abided by before you returned here a changed man.

 

So, who is doing the imposing of their own wishes here?  Not me.  I'm toeing the party line - as you once did.

 

If there's any friction between us, the 'new' you is the cause.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

 

This is at least 50% serious.  It's hard to quantify that sort of thing.

 

It's hard to quantify infinity too.  Or so I'm told.  I've never seen one, but I have faith that it's out there.

 

And there's reasonable evidence that its out there too.

 

Please let me know if you're interested to find out more.

[TABA]

On 8/3/2023 at 7:26 PM, RankStranger said:

If a human was responsible, then yes it would matter to me who is responsible.

 

If the universe was responsible though... then it doesn't matter who I blame.  It just is.

 

And seeings how God is necessarily greater and more mysterious than the universe, much the same reasoning applies.  God, whatever He is, just is

 

Rank, since the discussion between you and Walter has not been an unqualified success, maybe you and I can try it.  

 

Circling all the way back to the distant land of Thursday, you made the statement above.  I do not hold the universe responsible for things that happen, whether I consider them good or bad.  It’s basically rocks crashing into rocks, on various levels, with different consequences at different times and in different places.  
It seems we share the idea that the universe is not to be either blamed or thanked for things that happen.  
 

But you go on to say that the same reasoning applies to god: he just is.  
Am I understanding you correctly?  He just is, and shouldn’t be blamed for the bad things that happen?
 

 

[walterpthefirst]

I'll sit and watch from the side-lines and keep my counsel, if that helps TABA.

 

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

[Edgarcito]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

And there's the difference between RS, that'll probably make constructive discussion an impossibility.

 

You'll only engage with me on your terms and now you've listed what they are.

 

Whereas, I was simply asking you to abide by the general principles of the free exchange of questions and answers that is the norm in this forum and which you happily abided by before you returned here a changed man.

 

So, who is doing the imposing of their own wishes here?  Not me.  I'm toeing the party line - as you once did.

 

If there's any friction between us, the 'new' you is the cause.

Oh come on Walter....you said by necessity that our conversations needed to be laid out at your pace and rules....that I might understand better .... which is largely another term for your need to control and diminish.  Don't blame anyone but yourself.  It really really gets old regardless of how smart you are or the needs as a result.  Stop already.

[Edgarcito]

Next you will be accusing him of not using the same entry for particular definition....that it's his problem because he's not using the right or word......if you haven't already.  Which btw is an attempt to bloviate with your fucking science over our subjectivity.  Screw off dickhead.