Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Faith, Logic, and Freedom


Edgarcito

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, @Edgarcito, is it reasonable to conclude that you disagree with the logical conclusion that god cannot be both omnipotent and omni-benevolent; but that you also cannot find any fault in the logic that led to that conclusion?

Essentially, yes.  But in that logic we also demonstrate incompleteness, and uncertainty, and inability.... which is why, among other things, I hold in faith.  I believe it's the appropriate decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You might want to research your comments DB, thx.

I don't know what your referring to. But ok. 

 

I wanted yall to go at it in a debate format. Take turns. Let it be more organized. Really think out an argument and have rebuttals. 

 

The problem with you is that you don't follow any standard. You cherry pick what you believe in the bible. And if I were still Christian I would say if your a Christian the woods are full of them. 

 

So make your argument against RNP logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add....we are made of the dust (logical), and then breathed life (not understood).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DarkBishop said:

I don't know what your referring to. But ok. 

 

I wanted yall to go at it in a debate format. Take turns. Let it be more organized. Really think out an argument and have rebuttals. 

 

The problem with you is that you don't follow any standard. You cherry pick what you believe in the bible. And if I were still Christian I would say if your a Christian the woods are full of them. 

 

So make your argument against RNP logic.

It's ok, I do what I can.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Essentially, yes.  But in that logic we also demonstrate incompleteness, and uncertain, and inability.... which is why, among other things, I hold in faith.  I believe it's the appropriate decision.

So, you admit, then, that logic is not an absolute, like mathematics.  Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, you admit, then, that logic is not an absolute, like mathematics.  Thank you.

Let me ask you this... do you believe the imposed axioms on mathematics are absolute or subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Let me ask you this... do you believe the imposed axioms on mathematics are absolute or subjective.

I believe my grasp of mathematics is not sufficient to give an accurate answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I believe my grasp of mathematics is not sufficient to give an accurate answer.

Amen.  Pass the plate and let's go eat potluck...lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

What about faith, @Edgarcito?  You say that logic "demonstrate(s) incompleteness, and uncertain, and inability."  So, you hold faith as an alternative (among other things, apparently).  Is faith absolute?  Or is it subjective?  Is faith complete, certain, able?  Why would you believe that holding faith as an alternative to logic is an appropriate decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

To add....we are made of the dust (logical), and then breathed life (not understood).

 

An assertion made by faith and not supported by evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It's ok, I do what I can.  Thanks.

Its alright. If Christianity is to survive then they are going to have to change their mindset eventually to something more like yours. Basically believing the Bible is more of a guide than a rule book. More metaphorical than literal. Less absolute. 

 

The apostles sure didn't think that Jesus coming would have been delayed 2000 years. Christians now for the most part think its almost here. "It could happen anytime". They certainly don't thibk its going to be delayed another 2000 years.

 

So in 4022 A.D. when Jesus us still a no show, how many Christians are still going to be looking for his return at any time? I doubt very many are going to believe in a literal second coming by then. 

 

Just as Christians don't believe it was a literal snake in the Garden. They believe it was Satan in the form of a snake. The ancient canaanite people probably thought it was literally a snake that did it. And thats why they don't have legs anymore. 

 

But I'm not a chemist, mathematician, or epidemiologist. I'm work with industrial control systems and keep machines running. I may be lost on some of this argument on logic. But I'll pop my head in when asked or when I feel I can add something. 

 

Carry on! I'll get my bag of popcorn out for awhile. 🍿 

 

DB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edgarcito,

 

You've answered the Prof's questions, but mine got buried on Monday.  Would you please address them?  You replied to RankStranger saying that we are forced into situations every day that don't make immediate sense, and that our reaction could mean less than wonderful consequences.  On the back of that reply I asked you this.

 

 

 

Who forced Adam and Eve into their 'situation' in Eden?

 

There are only four players in the story; Adam, Eve, Satan and god.

 

Of the four players in the story, Adam and Eve can be eliminated.

 

That's because they were not responsible for setting up of the conditions under which they lived in Eden.

 

That leaves just the serpent/Satan and god.

 

So, which of those two forced Adam and Eve into their 'situation' in Eden?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
On 10/14/2022 at 3:02 PM, Edgarcito said:

Yes, two choices, follow the command that makes no sense, the other is eternal torture.  The choice in itself still appears free.

 

On 10/17/2022 at 6:35 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Would you subject your children to such a "choice", Ed?

 

On 10/18/2022 at 7:06 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Whenever you get around to it, Ed...

Now that we have settled the logic issue, Ed, you need to first answer Walt's question.  Once you have done so, could you please address this issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What about faith, @Edgarcito?  You say that logic "demonstrate(s) incompleteness, and uncertain, and inability."  So, you hold faith as an alternative (among other things, apparently).  Is faith absolute?  Or is it subjective?  Is faith complete, certain, able?  Why would you believe that holding faith as an alternative to logic is an appropriate decision?

Also, @Edgarcito, once you have addressed Walt's question and then my question above concerning "free" will, please explain why you believe that holding faith as an alternative to logic is an appropriate decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Edgarcito,

 

You've answered the Prof's questions, but mine got buried on Monday.  Would you please address them?  You replied to RankStranger saying that we are forced into situations every day that don't make immediate sense, and that our reaction could mean less than wonderful consequences.  On the back of that reply I asked you this.

 

 

 

Who forced Adam and Eve into their 'situation' in Eden?

 

There are only four players in the story; Adam, Eve, Satan and god.

 

Of the four players in the story, Adam and Eve can be eliminated.

 

That's because they were not responsible for setting up of the conditions under which they lived in Eden.

 

That leaves just the serpent/Satan and god.

 

So, which of those two forced Adam and Eve into their 'situation' in Eden?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

     I know I keep picking at this nit but I'm going to have at it again.

 

     Having shown that this was just a serpent it does change your assertion above.  The reason being is that is removes the serpent as well under your reasoning.  In that you state "That's because they were not responsible for setting up of the conditions under which they lived in Eden."  Well neither was the serpent nor any creature in the garden.

 

    Even allowing for this to be Satan nothing created could be held responsible given the way you state it.  They were simply placed where they were placed in the condition they were placed at that point in time (ie. even with the tradition of Satan's rebellion he was cast to Earth and Eden making that the situation in which he was placed).

 

          mwc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mwc said:

     I know I keep picking at this nit but I'm going to have at it again.

 

     Having shown that this was just a serpent it does change your assertion above.  The reason being is that is removes the serpent as well under your reasoning.  In that you state "That's because they were not responsible for setting up of the conditions under which they lived in Eden."  Well neither was the serpent nor any creature in the garden.

 

    Even allowing for this to be Satan nothing created could be held responsible given the way you state it.  They were simply placed where they were placed in the condition they were placed at that point in time (ie. even with the tradition of Satan's rebellion he was cast to Earth and Eden making that the situation in which he was placed).

 

          mwc

 

 

You have the correct answer mwc, but have you wondered where I am going with this?

 

Yes, the serpent was not responsible for setting up the conditions under which Adam and Eve lived in Eden.  Nor was the serpent responsible for placing temptation in the way of Adam and Eve by making the tree of the knowledge of good and evil 'pleasing to the eye and good for food'.  Nor was the serpent responsible for issuing an ultimatum to Adam and Eve about the forbidden tree.  Nor was the serpent responsible for creating Adam and Eve without the ability to understand what that penalty for disobedience (death) was.  Nor was the serpent responsible for tying Adam and Eve's choice of obedience/disobedience to the fate of the world, so that disease and  death came to every other human being, animal, fish and bird.  Nor was the serpent responsible for cursing Eve and every other woman with the terrible pain of childbirth.  

 

The only thing that the serpent was responsible for was bringing harm into Eden.

 

I'm asking Edgarcito about this mwc so that he can tell me which of the four players in the story of Eden bears the sole responsibility for all of these things. Even the last, the bringing of harm in Eden, isn't solely down to the serpent.  That could have easily been prevented.  If the serpent was actually Satan, there are three places in scripture where it tells us that the fallen angels were imprisoned - so why wasn't Satan imprisoned to prevent him harming Adam and Eve?  And if the serpent wasn't Satan, didn't the one responsible for Adam and Eve's safety have the foresight, means and power to stop an ordinary snake from harming his children?

 

What I'm doing mwc, is asking Edgarcito to tell me who bears the ultimate responsibility for allowing his children to come to harm.  

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

The only thing that the serpent was responsible for was bringing harm into Eden.

 

On the contrary!!!

 

I don't know why I'm objecting; I'm just objecting! Where this is headed, I have no idea!! Reason, rhyme, logic, objectivity - hogwash!!!!!

 

Let's race to 40 pages now....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
50 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

The only thing that the serpent was responsible for was bringing harm into Eden.

 

40 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

On the contrary

I agree with Josh, here.  At the risk of sounding like I am only arguing semantics, I would not say that the serpent was responsible for bringing harm into Eden.  Rather, I would say that harm was brought into Eden through the serpent, which places elsewhere the responsibility for the bringing.  Whether the serpent was a (metaphorically) literal serpent, or whether it was actually Satan masquerading in reptilian form, whichever entity was represented by the serpent, said entity would have to act according to its own nature. 

 

We are told elsewhere in scripture that Satan is deceitful, wicked, and a tempter by nature.  If the serpent was Satan in disguise, or Satan's marionette, it would have no other option but to act according to the nature of Satan himself.  On the other hand, if the serpent was a (metaphorically) literal serpent, and it was subtil* in nature, as the King James describes it, then it could only act according to that nature.  

 

Both of the entities potentially represented by the serpent would simply act according to their own nature, whether they were in Eden, or east of Eden in the land of Nod, or in Times Square, New York.  We are told that Satan was originally a beautiful and near-perfect angel, Lucifer, the bringer of light and the star of the morning.  We are told that his nature was corrupted due to his arrogance, pride, and rebellion.  So, Satan acting according to a corrupted, deceitful nature is pretty straightforward.  

 

But if the serpent was simply a serpent, how did it come to have a nature that was beguiling, cunning, deceitful?

 

Had the serpent not just been created by god himself along with all of the rest of the animals, birds, fish, and trees?  And did god himself not also look upon all that he had made and declare that it was "very good"?  This means that god must have created the serpent with a deceitful and cunning nature; and then declared that deceitful and cunning nature to be "very good."  There is no other explanation given in the text that would address how the serpent came by its nature; nor how it ended up in the Garden in the first place.  It had to have been created as it was, and placed into Eden, by god.

 

And this is where the responsibility side of the argument comes into play. Whether the serpent was a serpent, or whether the serpent was Satan, either way, we have the introduction of a deceitful and beguiling entity into an otherwise perfect, innocent environment and having the opportunity to take a run at two naive humans.  And through the nature of this entity, harm was brought, not just into Eden, but into the entire history of humanity.  How did this entity enter Eden?  How did it get there?  Who declared that it would be "very good" to introduce such seduction into the Garden?

 

As Walt has phrased it, Who is responsible?  I'll leave it to Ed to provide the answer...

 

 

 

*subtil

adjective

Obsolete form of subtle; sly, artful, cunning

(comparative more subtil, superlative most subtil)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What about faith, @Edgarcito?  You say that logic "demonstrate(s) incompleteness, and uncertain, and inability."  So, you hold faith as an alternative (among other things, apparently).  Is faith absolute?  Or is it subjective?  Is faith complete, certain, able?  Why would you believe that holding faith as an alternative to logic is an appropriate decision?

This is how I see it Prof, for what it's worth.  Using logic, at some point, I'm going to run out of knowledge and are forced to a conclusion. A to B, B to C, C to D, and we don't know about E, so D is the logical answer until we know more.  I believe there are many good uses for logic.  But, if I were to apply this to humanity, I would likely come to a terrible misunderstanding of who someone is.

 

Using faith and grace allows the door to remain open rather than forcing a conclusion.  If we apply these two applications to God, in your mind, your logical answer D, is God is evil.  And l believe logically, it's a bit difficult for Christians to have answers for why the tree in the garden. 

 

And I think Jesus makes extra effort for people to understand who God is.  And also leaves the door open through faith and grace.  Lots of examples, just somewhat busy today at work.  Thx.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
18 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

This is how I see it Prof, for what it's worth.  Using logic, at some point, I'm going to run out of knowledge and are forced to a conclusion. A to B, B to C, C to D, and we don't know about E, so D is the logical answer until we know more.  I believe there are many good uses for logic.  But, if I were to apply this to humanity, I would likely come to a terrible misunderstanding of who someone is.

 

Using faith and grace allows the door to remain open rather than forcing a conclusion.  If we apply these two applications to God, in your mind, your logical answer D, is God is evil.  And l believe logically, it's a bit difficult for Christians to have answers for why the tree in the garden. 

 

And I think Jesus makes extra effort for people to understand who God is.  And also leaves the door open through faith and grace.  Lots of examples, just somewhat busy today at work.  Thx.

 

 

 

 

While I appreciate the answer, @walterpthefirst was in line before me.  We will discuss your answer here; but first, please respond to Walt.  Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw mwc, I'd like to thank you for this link.  https://iep.utm.edu/evil-evi/  It contains very clear definitions of what evil events are and what good events are.  Specifically...

 

 

An event may be categorized as evil if it involves any of the following:

  1. some harm (whether it be minor or great) being done to the physical and/or psychological well-being of a sentient creature;
  2. the unjust treatment of some sentient creature;
  3. loss of opportunity resulting from premature death;
  4. anything that prevents an individual from leading a fulfilling and virtuous life;
  5. a person doing that which is morally wrong;
  6. the “privation of good.”

 

So, the events that unfolded in Eden were certainly evil on three out of the six counts listed above.  Physical and psychological harm was done to the well-being of ALL living creatures.  Because death did not exist before the Fall, all living creatures suffered a loss of opportunity from having their lives cut short.  And since god declared that everything he had made was 'good', when it was all corrupted this was the greatest possible privation of good.

 

 

An event may be categorized as good if it involves any of the following:

  1. some improvement (whether it be minor or great) in the physical and/or psychological well-being of a sentient creature;
  2. the just treatment of some sentient creature;
  3. anything that advances the degree of fulfilment and virtue in an individual’s life;
  4. a person doing that which is morally right;
  5. the optimal functioning of some person or thing, so that it does not lack the full measure of being and goodness that ought to belong to it.

 

But here's where we need Edgarcito's help, mwc.  Two items on this list (#1 and #5) were NOT performed by god, who, being the source of all moral goodness, should have carried them out.

 

God did NOT improve the physical and psychological well-being of Adam and Eve by shielding them from the harm he knew the serpent/Satan would visit upon them.  And by extension, because he had tied their choice to the fate of the world (without telling them) god did NOT improve the physical and psychological well-being of every living creature in the world.  He had ample chance, opportunity, means and power to do this.  But he didn't.

 

God did NOT allow the continuation of the full measure of being and goodness that he lavished upon Adam and Eve by shielding them from the harm that he knew the serpent/Satan would visit upon them.  And by extension, because he had tied their choice to the fate of the world (without telling them) god did NOT allow the full measure of being and goodness that every living thing ought to have enjoyed.  He had ample chance, opportunity, means and power to do this.  But he didn't.

 

So, I'm looking to Edgarcito to explain two things to me.

 

A )  Who is responsible for the 'situation' that Adam and Eve found themselves in?

 

and...

 

B )  Who is responsible for the acts of moral evil (#1 and #5) that resulted from morally good acts NOT being carried out.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Edgarcito,

 

You've answered the Prof's questions, but mine got buried on Monday.  Would you please address them?  You replied to RankStranger saying that we are forced into situations every day that don't make immediate sense, and that our reaction could mean less than wonderful consequences.  On the back of that reply I asked you this.

 

 

 

Who forced Adam and Eve into their 'situation' in Eden?

 

There are only four players in the story; Adam, Eve, Satan and god.

 

Of the four players in the story, Adam and Eve can be eliminated.

 

That's because they were not responsible for setting up of the conditions under which they lived in Eden.

 

That leaves just the serpent/Satan and god.

 

So, which of those two forced Adam and Eve into their 'situation' in Eden?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Let's not go here again Walter, let's ask ourselves what the right decision was this time.  We can't discern how much A&E knew, or what level of freedom they had, so why do you want to keep forcing logic on the scenario given we don't know all the pertinent information.  The entire thread is essentially asking is logic the correct answer for us or is faith.  

 

How about we do a demonstration like we just finished.... with the same four people and see how it works.  Whatta  you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Let's not go here again Walter, let's ask ourselves what the right decision was this time.  We can't discern how much A&E knew, or what level of freedom they had, so why do you want to keep forcing logic on the scenario given we don't know all the pertinent information.  The entire thread is essentially asking is logic the correct answer for us or is faith.  

 

How about we do a demonstration like we just finished.... with the same four people and see how it works.  Whatta  you say.

 

No.

 

Recently when I asked you if you'd protect your vulnerable children from a rattlesnake that entered your garden you told me that you'd kill it immediately.

 

So, you do know what the morally right thing is.

 

You do know that it's morally good and right to protect the vulnerable from harm.

 

You also know that it's morally wrong and evil to fail to protect the vulnerable from harm.

 

So no, you don't get off the hook, Ed.

 

Now answer the question please.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this will help you, Ed?

 

https://iep.utm.edu/evil-evi/

 

  1. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
  2. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
  3. An omnipotent being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
  4. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

From this set of auxiliary propositions, it clearly follows that

  1. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No.

 

Recently when I asked you if you'd protect your vulnerable children from a rattlesnake that entered your garden you told me that you'd kill it immediately.

 

So, you do know what the morally right thing is.

 

You do know that it's morally good and right to protect the vulnerable from harm.

 

You also know that it's morally wrong and evil to fail to protect the vulnerable from harm.

 

So no, you don't get off the hook, Ed.

 

Now answer the question please.

 

 

 

 

Maybe your assessment of God is wrong Walter.  Come on, let's play the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.