sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Nope. You're confusing "will" with "power."Like unicorns and leprechauns.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nope. You're confusing "will" with "power."Like unicorns and leprechauns.
Nope. You're confusing "will" with "power."
Do you have a will? Who's prompting you to keep posting?Nope. You can prove free will as much as you can prove unicorns. Precisely.
Why are you dodging? Do you or do you not have a will? Who's prompting you to keep posting? My question to you provides the answer you seek.Why are you dodging?
Can you or can't you prove free will exists more than unicorns?
You're still dodging the question. The answer to that question is my evidence.No. I'm not looking for answers. I'm asking you to acknowledge the obvious. If you can't admit it to me, at least admit it to yourself. You have ZERO proof of free will. Exactly as much as you have for unicorns.
You have zero proof of God's existence, either yet you have no problem arguing as if God did exist. No, there's no objective evidence for free will, other than the decisions, impulses and self-awareness that all people display. All of this to say that objective evidence isn't critical to a good theological argument. Your insistence upon it, therefore, is really immaterial.No. I'm not looking for answers. I'm asking you to acknowledge the obvious. If you can't admit it to me, at least admit it to yourself. You have ZERO proof of free will. Exactly as much as you have for unicorns.
It seems like no religious person in the Abrahamic faiths takes Epicurus' riddle seriously:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
You have zero proof of God's existence, either yet you have no problem arguing as if God did exist. No, there's no objective evidence for free will, other than the decisions, impulses and self-awareness that all people display. All of this to say that objective evidence isn't critical to a good theological argument. Your insistence upon it, therefore, is really immaterial.
It's not really much of a riddle or argument though. It's a series of unsupported assumptions about God. None of it necessarily follows.
If you're going to say God and by that mean a being whose capacity and expression are sufficient to create the order and mechanism of our reality, then presuming to judge him from a broken, imperfect corner is a bit...presumptuous.
I'd start with Anselm for the general qualification: "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." The perfection that scale itself points to.Define God, then.
I'd start with Anselm for the general qualification: "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." The perfection that scale itself points to.
I'd start with Anselm for the general qualification: "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." The perfection that scale itself points to.
I'd start with Anselm for the general qualification: "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." The perfection that scale itself points to.
Anselm was speaking to the God of Abraham, as am I. Offering that description at the end only serves to let me know that no matter how reasonable you begin, your bias is steeped in the emotional. Judging my God is pointless. Either He isn't, in which case you're wasting time, or He's beyond your understanding and ability to judge, as you should understand anyone accepting Anselm believes is the case for Christ/God...I'd continue along this line, but it's almost always pointless to discuss my faith with someone who feels comfortable with or compelled to use terms like "biblegod" and "idiot" in response to a civil enough profer...as pointless as discussing property rights with a Marxist or most taxes with a libertarian.Fine.
As you pointed out in your previous post, we cannot criticize such a being. We tend to criticize gods defined in ways that allow the typical person to find fault with abhorrent, childish behavior. If a proposed God has no negative attributes, there's nothing to criticize. If you happen to be talking about biblegod, well, he's a despicable idiot that deserves the lake of fire he created.
That's a fine declaration, Shad, but it's neither argument nor demonstrably, objectively true. To the contrary, it's useful to its purpose, which is understanding that when we speak of God, if we understand Anselm, we are speaking of perfection in being. That which is beyond our judgement or, except as it relates to us, our understanding.Which is a useless definition.
It's an interesting definition, but Anselm in using greater implies perfection. I don't think of the devil as the most imperfect being, or perfectly imperfect, if you would. You could define him as a being in perfect opposition to God.Am I allowed to define the devil as "a being than which nothing lower can be conceived" ?
Ciao
-viole
Anselm was speaking to the God of Abraham, as am I. Offering a pointlessly rude and juvenile description at the end of that only serves to let me know that no matter how reasonable you begin, your bias is steeped in the emotional. Judging my God is pointless. Either He isn't, in which case you're wasting time, or He's beyond your understanding and ability to judge, as you should understand anyone accepting Anselm believes is the case for Christ/God...I'd continue along this line, but it's almost always pointless to discuss my faith with someone who feels comfortable with or compelled to use terms like "biblegod" and "idiot" in response to a civil enough profer...as pointless as discussing property rights with a Marxist or most taxes with a libertarian.
That's a fine declaration, Shad, but it's neither argument nor demonstrably, objectively true. To the contrary, it's useful to its purpose, which is understanding that when we speak of God, if we understand Anselm, we are speaking of perfection in being. That which is beyond our judgement or, except as it relates to us, our understanding.
That's a fine declaration, Shad, but it's neither argument nor demonstrably, objectively true. To the contrary, it's useful to its purpose, which is understanding that when we speak of God, if we understand Anselm, we are speaking of perfection in being. That which is beyond our judgement or, except as it relates to us, our understanding.