VisorCentral.com Pages (73): « First ... « 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Inane ramblings (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=16736)

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-23-2001 05:35 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
How can I go somewhere that doesn't exist? Even the Pope says it's pretty much a state of mind...

Where?

quote:
...LOL! And D-R, you know that "most accepted" has almost 0 bearing on the truthfulness of a given premise. I hereby challenge "the definition most accepted for the term 'free will.'" I think it unnecessarily includes the idea of evil.

I agree that the most accepted definition for the term "free will" is misleading and unnecessarily includes the condition of evil. I also agree that your definition of free will could exist without evil. But an omnipotent God, creating a universe for His creation, does not give the option of free will to His creation if He imposes the limitations of time and space. Hence the definition of free will as the choice between good and evil - the two options God left us. That requires God's implementation of evil - which I've agreed on with you before. God willed evil.

quote:
Does Fed Ex take deliveries from heaven? Seems like they might not be let in... Fed Ex the ice now, I won't wait for hell to burn...

What's your address?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-23-2001 05:38 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
If you slip Charon a C-note, he'll take anything across.

Been to hell recently, have you?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 07-23-2001 05:52 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson

Been to hell recently, have you?


Toby, I didn't know you had a Pocket PC

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by septimus on 07-23-2001 05:59 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Where?


It was a couple of years ago, the pope issued a statement (I forget which kind, there are so many) about hell. I'm having a hard time finding an original or unbiased source of what he said (one of the things is that it's cold, not hot!). Calling it a "state of mind" may be pushing it a little too far. He says "More than a physical place, hell is the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God."

Anyway, start Here, there's a lot of debate out there on it.

quote:
I agree that the most accepted definition for the term "free will" is misleading and unnecessarily includes the condition of evil.


This statement seems to contradict this:

quote:
Hence the definition of free will as the choice between good and evil - the two options God left us.


Either way, even if somebody somehow manages to convince me that in this universe, free will is necessarily tied to evil, that doesn't break my argument. The key is that free will must necessarily be tied to evil in all possible universes. I don't think that can be shown. Just because those are the only two options god gave doesn't mean they're the only two logically possible options.

quote:
What's your address?


I live in the state of confusion.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by Toby on 07-23-2001 06:21 PM:

Originally posted by dietrichbohn:
Toby, I didn't know you had a Pocket PC

Actually, it's a Wince 2.x device, a Cassiopeia E-11. It hasn't been used in a couple years.

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-23-2001 06:43 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
This statement seems to contradict this:

Until you read everthing between them.

quote:
Either way, even if somebody somehow manages to convince me that in this universe, free will is necessarily tied to evil, that doesn't break my argument. The key is that free will must necessarily be tied to evil in all possible universes. I don't think that can be shown. Just because those are the only two options god gave doesn't mean they're the only two logically possible options.

Let's try this from a couple of different angles.

1. Free as defined as the ability to act without limitation. To have total control over one's actions. Evil is by necessity tied to free will - for if evil is not an option, limitations have been imposed. We are omnipotent.

2. Free will as defined by you (acting without the limitation of another conscious being). If that conscious being is an omnipotent God, free will does not exist in this universe, as God has imposed the limitations of space and time (sound familiar?). In a universe where God has not imposed such limitations - see argument #1. In a universe where God has imposed a different set of limitations - see argument #3.

3. Free will as defined as the ability to choose between the options left to us by an omnipotent God. Evil is necessarily part of the definition in this universe, as it has been left as an option to us. This definition is dynamic. Evil may not be necessary to free will in a universe where God has imposed the limitation that all must be good. This leads to the question of why evil is an option of free will in this universe, which has already been touched on earlier in the argument.

quote:
I live in the state of confusion.

Don't we all.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 07-23-2001 07:10 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
2. Free will as defined by you (acting without the limitation of another conscious being). If that conscious being is an omnipotent God, free will does not exist in this universe, as God has imposed the limitations of space and time (sound familiar?).


Unless, of course, there is no god. Back on topic, I get your point. But in regards to time and space, we could also rail against god for not letting us will loopy things with time and space. It's all in the setup, and my flying or traveling through time is logically possible until proven otherwise. I'm talking about free will as it could exist in possible universes, and thus I need no reference to time, space, or evil. But if you want to kill off free will in this universe, go ahead. IMHO, free will is a red herring, because I'm going to act as if I have free will whether I have it or not!

I think we're pretty much on the same page in regards to free will, possible universes containing free will and evil, and so on, we're just missing each other with semantics. I'm not convinced that free will is necessarily tied to evil in this universe, but to debate that I think we're have to start jumping through some other apologetic hoops. I will agree that for the Xn worldview, free will is necessarily tied to evil in this universe.

quote:
That requires God's implementation of evil - which I've agreed on with you before. God willed evil.


Ok, We're on the same page WOO HOO! Now, want to define evil?

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-23-2001 07:25 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
Unless, of course, there is no god...

We could try this argument, but from my experience it goes nowhere.

quote:
But if you want to kill off free will in this universe, go ahead.

Free will as you define it? It's already dead. Free will as defined in argument #3? Exactly.

quote:
IMHO, free will is a red herring, because I'm going to act as if I have free will whether I have it or not!

Never realizing that limitations have been imposed. Bend your arm 90 degrees between the shoulder and the elbow without breaking a bone.

quote:
I think we're pretty much on the same page in regards to free will, possible universes containing free will and evil, and so on, we're just missing each other with semantics. I'm not convinced that free will is necessarily tied to evil in this universe, but to debate that I think we're have to start jumping through some other apologetic hoops. I will agree that for the Xn worldview, free will is necessarily tied to evil in this universe.

You're arguing my #3. As stated, you were arguing my #2. Damn samantics. They're only good for bantering.

quote:
Ok, We're on the same page WOO HOO! Now, want to define evil?

Love to. Evil is not good.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 07-23-2001 07:37 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
We could try this argument, but from my experience it goes nowhere.


Well, you might be surprised. The difficulty is getting all parties to maintain an open mind.

quote:
Free will as you define it? It's already dead.


Don't be antagonistic. It's far from dead, as I do not believe in an omnipotent god. Even if I did, it isn't dead. You're confusing "control" with "limitations." I never said that free will allowed you to act outside limitations set by another being, but that your actions are not controlled. There's a difference. Limitations, you're set on a stage and told you must improv about the subject of death. Control, you're set on the stage and given Hamlet's "To be or not to be."

quote:
Free will as defined in argument #3? Exactly.


I don't accept that definition. Perhaps "Free will as the ability to choose bewteen the options left us by the universe we're in," but I don't see a need to tie the concept of free will to god or god's omnipotence. But either way, I'm stretching for a definiton of free will across all possible universes, not in the universe where an omnipotent and evil-willing god limits our options.

quote:
Never realizing that limitations have been imposed. Bend your arm 90 degrees between the shoulder and the elbow without breaking a bone.


90 degrees in which direction? Across the x,y,z axis? What about t, time? Or any of the other possible dimensions? Anyway, I've addressed the limitations issue on two fronts: I'm talking about control, and I'm not just talking about our universe.

quote:
You're arguing my #3. As stated, you were arguing my #2. Damn samantics. They're only good for bantering.


I think that the best way to end any argument (though I'm not trying to end this one) is to simply say "Yo Mammy."

quote:
Love to. Evil is not good.


What's good?

...see next post

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by septimus on 07-23-2001 07:43 PM:

Time for fun!

Here's the standard Catholic reply to my argument:

We live in the best of all possible universes because god is benevolent and therefore would want to provide us with the best possible universe. Therefore, since god wanted to provide us with free will and since there is evil in the universe, it must be that free will necessitates the existence of evil. (This is a pretty modern argument, but standard since the advent of modal logic)

Although man wills evil, god did not create evil. Rather, "evil" is man's choosing things that are in a lesser place on the hierarchy of good over things in a higher place. "Evil" is man's choice. (That's St. Augustine, baby!)

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-24-2001 06:33 PM:

Finally got to post. I've been trying this response since yesterday.

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
Well, you might be surprised. The difficulty is getting all parties to maintain an open mind.

The problem has not been one of civility. No one changes their mind, the "proofs" are cliche and overquoted, etc.. It has the dubious distinction of being the only argument guaranteed to reduce itself into so much semantical bantering. In other words, it's boring and unproductive.

quote:
Don't be antagonistic.

Don't be agonistic. Actually, I'd be the agonist in this argument, so you're the one being antagonistic. If you're attributing hostility to me, you've read more into my response than is there.

quote:
It's far from dead, as I do not believe in an omnipotent god.

Regardless, you're ignoring the distinction I made in my argument. There are limitations, regardless of who put them in place (as I'll address in a moment). This argument is dead, as well. Even I can only semantically banter for so long. We see eye to eye with regard to alternate universes, etc.

quote:
Even if I did, it isn't dead. You're confusing "control" with "limitations."

Hardly. Free will is "controlled/contained/etc." with the use of "limitations."

quote:
I never said that free will allowed you to act outside limitations set by another being, but that your actions are not controlled.

But those "limitations" "control" what "free will" encompasses.

quote:
There's a difference.

Yes. But that doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive. I can "control" my son by "limiting" what he can do. If I "limit" his choices to 1, I "control" absolutely. If I "limit" his choices to 2, I am in less "control," but have hardly reliquinshed it.

quote:
Limitations, you're set on a stage and told you must improv about the subject of death. Control, you're set on the stage and given Hamlet's "To be or not to be."

Both of them are merely "limitations" that "control" what you act out. The difference is one of severity.

quote:
I don't accept that definition. Perhaps "Free will as the ability to choose bewteen the options left us by the universe we're in," but I don't see a need to tie the concept of free will to god or god's omnipotence.

Fine.

quote:
But either way, I'm stretching for a definiton of free will across all possible universes, not in the universe where an omnipotent and evil-willing god limits our options.

Did you miss the "dynamic" in definition 3?

quote:
90 degrees in which direction? Across the x,y,z axis? What about t, time? Or any of the other possible dimensions?

I'm speaking of the limitations imposed on you in the here and now. Even given the dimension of time, that limitation exists.

quote:
Anyway, I've addressed the limitations issue on two fronts: I'm talking about control, and I'm not just talking about our universe.

I'm talking about "limitations" being a method to "control", and neither was I.

quote:
We live in the best of all possible universes because god is benevolent and therefore would want to provide us with the best possible universe. Therefore, since god wanted to provide us with free will and since there is evil in the universe, it must be that free will necessitates the existence of evil. (This is a pretty modern argument, but standard since the advent of modal logic)

Although man wills evil, god did not create evil. Rather, "evil" is man's choosing things that are in a lesser place on the hierarchy of good over things in a higher place. "Evil" is man's choice. (That's St. Augustine, baby!)

Okay then.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 07-24-2001 07:07 PM:

Semantic Bantering:

The "antognism" I was referring to was the statement:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
It's already dead


Calling an argument "dead" before is the very definition of antagonstic (in the sense of "anti-argumentative" in that it attempts to simply end the argument). The hostility I read was probably due mostly to the format of our discussion, no non-verbal cues. However, you did it again in your last post. If you want to cease taking part in the discussion (it really is getting long!), ok, but I can't let claims that the argument is "dead," that imply that the reason they're dead is the absolute soundness of a given position stand.

phew.

quote:
The problem has not been one of civility. No one changes their mind, the "proofs" are cliche and overquoted, etc.. It has the dubious distinction of being the only argument guaranteed to reduce itself into so much semantical bantering. In other words, it's boring and unproductive.


90% of the time, this is true. However, I've had the distinct pleasure of experience the other 10% personally. If you want a fresh argument, I can bring one to the table.

quote:
Hardly. Free will is "controlled/contained/etc." with the use of "limitations." [...] But those "limitations" "control" what "free will" encompasses. [...]Yes. But that doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive. I can "control" my son by "limiting" what he can do. If I "limit" his choices to 1, I "control" absolutely. If I "limit" his choices to 2, I am in less "control," but have hardly reliquinshed it. [...] The difference is one of severity.


More semantics, but veering off the main point, IMHO. I'll cede the point about limitations & control. (I had been aiming for some kind of idea of "active" vs "passive" or something like that, but the whole thing is an ugly quagmire that is peripheral to the discussion anyway).

...I just deleted a s%@#load of text related to free will & its necessary connections to the groundrules of the universe, when it hit me:

D-R: Do you believe that god set us up in the best of all possible universes? When you admit "god wills evil," do you mean "god wills evil because he has to" or "god wills evil because he's not wholly good, and did not act with our absolute best interests in mind." I just assumed that it wasn't the latter, but maybe it is. It changes the discussion immensely, and may be why we're talking past each other...

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by septimus on 07-24-2001 07:16 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
I can "control" my son by "limiting" what he can do. If I "limit" his choices to 1, I "control" absolutely. If I "limit" his choices to 2, I am in less "control," but have hardly reliquinshed it.


Oh god, I can't help myself.

The moment when you allow 2 choices is the precise moment when you reliquish control! How does anything choose between two things? I submit there are three choices:

1) It doesn't, 1 or 2 is chosen for it by something else (god, neurons, puppetmasters, etc)
2) Randomness
3) Free Will

The moment you have 2 options is the moment that you become a conscious being or a rock: the conscious being actively chooses and the rock doesn't. That is free will, no matter how paltry. Even if limited to two choices, I exercise free will by choosing one of them. That's my idea of free will. I can't put it in a statement, but as I reread that last sentence I quoted I just got the "free will feelin'" all over again.

Maybe my basic gripe is that I feel that free will is necessarily tied to the person as an attribute, and not necessarily tied to the limitations set upon it.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-24-2001 10:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
Calling an argument "dead" before is the very definition of antagonstic (in the sense of "anti-argumentative" in that it attempts to simply end the argument).

Far be it from me to try to end an argument. However, there is a point when the argument is only semantical. This has become the case with regard to the "possible universe" argument. Any third party reading the last page and a half would say we're arguing the same thing.

quote:
The hostility I read was probably due mostly to the format of our discussion, no non-verbal cues. However, you did it again in your last post. If you want to cease taking part in the discussion (it really is getting long!), ok, but I can't let claims that the argument is "dead," that imply that the reason they're dead is the absolute soundness of a given position stand.

The argument is dead in that we are speaking around each other. We are arguing damn near exactly the same thing. I was trying to clarify where you were coming from (through semantics). Your argument that free will is the ability to act without being controlled by a another conscious being is absolutely false if we are talking about an omnipotent God in this universe. Your argument may be true if there is no God or we are speaking of a different universe where His creation is omnipotent. I've ceded the possibility that free will may exist in a different universe, as you've ceded that free will doesn't exist in this one - given the presence of an omnipotent God. The argument leads to the existence of God.

If I wish not to participate, I won't. If I wish to be hostile, you can be sure there will be no question in your mind as to my intention.

quote:
90% of the time, this is true. However, I've had the distinct pleasure of experience the other 10% personally. If you want a fresh argument, I can bring one to the table.

By all means. I remain skeptical.

quote:
More semantics, but veering off the main point, IMHO. I'll cede the point about limitations & control. (I had been aiming for some kind of idea of "active" vs "passive" or something like that, but the whole thing is an ugly quagmire that is peripheral to the discussion anyway).

Agreed.

quote:
D-R: Do you believe that god set us up in the best of all possible universes?

No.

quote:
When you admit "god wills evil," do you mean "god wills evil because he has to" or "god wills evil because he's not wholly good, and did not act with our absolute best interests in mind."

I admit God wills evil for selfish reasons. My personal belief is that God desires love. Untested love is little better than apathy. I believe that free will is the vehicle God used to birth evil. In other words, we choose to love God, which is good; we choose not to love God, which is evil. Choices by others not to love God have the unfortunate consequence of affecting those who have chosen to love God, making it that much more difficult to justify that love. As I said before, I don't think God wants to spend eternity with a bunch of pricks who couldn't care less about Him. Ultimately, I believe God is interested in our best interests. I think of greater concern to him in this universe are those few diamonds that are formed from the coal. These are my own personal beliefs. I doubt they can be "proven."

quote:
I just assumed that it wasn't the latter, but maybe it is. It changes the discussion immensely, and may be why we're talking past each other...

Let's just move on to the existence of God. "It is possible that an omnipotent God exists."

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-24-2001 10:58 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
The moment when you allow 2 choices is the precise moment when you reliquish control!

Hardly. Relinquishing control could only be achieved by removing all limitations. That would require that we be omnipotent - given the presence and/or intervention of an omnipotent God.

quote:
How does anything choose between two things? I submit there are three choices:

1) It doesn't, 1 or 2 is chosen for it by something else (god, neurons, puppetmasters, etc)
2) Randomness
3) Free Will

The moment you have 2 options is the moment that you become a conscious being or a rock: the conscious being actively chooses and the rock doesn't. That is free will, no matter how paltry. Even if limited to two choices, I exercise free will by choosing one of them. That's my idea of free will. I can't put it in a statement, but as I reread that last sentence I quoted I just got the "free will feelin'" all over again.

Maybe my basic gripe is that I feel that free will is necessarily tied to the person as an attribute, and not necessarily tied to the limitations set upon it.

I never once stated that free will didn't exist within limitations. Re-read my three options again. You're arguing a variation of #3 - free will as defined as the ability to choose between the options available.

My three arguments were with the understanding that we were speaking with an omnipotent God as a given. You've changed your argument since then - hence some of the confusion.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-25-2001 12:09 AM:

Allow me to try to clarify one more time.

Your argument was that free will didn't need to include a definition of evil. This is not true if there is an omnipotent God, because - by your definition - free will means to act without being "controlled" by another conscious being. Any limitations imposed by an omnipotent God means that we are being "controlled." I am not omnipotent, therefore limitations have been imposed. Your "free-will feeling" is either you:

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Yorick on 07-25-2001 01:16 AM:

Originally posted by dick-richardson
Any third party reading the last page and a half would say we're arguing the same thing.

this third party says you're both arguing about how to argue, since ya brought it up.
I got losted a coupla pages ago.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by miradu on 07-25-2001 01:31 AM:

how come this thread hasn't been closed yet?!?!?!

__________________
-miradu

Posted by ToolkiT on 07-25-2001 01:50 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by miradu2000
how come this thread hasn't been closed yet?!?!?!

mmm, maybe we should move this thread to www.religious-flamewars.com ...

Things are getting way off topic now, lets save some bandwith on what this site was build for (in case you forgot, Handspring Visor related topics)

Let's all agree to disagree and get it over with...

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by dick-richardson on 07-25-2001 04:28 AM:

Since Jesus is on earth waiting for the sign from God to smite us all, which pda is He using the interim?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:34 PM. Pages (73): « First ... « 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.4
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2016.