Lifestyle > Train of Thought

For all believers.. an interesting arguement

(1/3) > >>

Ant:
Quotation from 17th century philosophy Vanini...

"If God wills sins, he will therefore produce them, for it is written that 'he brings about all that he wills.'  If he does not will them and yet they are committed, then we must declare him to be either improvident or not omnipotent or cruel, for then he does o carry out his decree either because he is ignorant or powerless or indolent. - philosophers say that, if God did not want mean and infamous actions to occur in the world, he would, no doubt, with a nod banish and abolish from the world all scandalous deeds.  For who of us could resist the divine will?  How could crimes be committed against the will of God, if with every sinful actions he endows the criminal with the strength to commit it?  Moreover, if a human being sins against the will of God, then God is weaker than the human being, and the human being opposes him and triumphs.  The result of all this is that God desires to have the world as it is, and that if he wanted to have a better world he would have a better one...  Consequently, if the will acts badly, the fault must be imputed on God."


Unfortunately this argument deceived a fellow philosopher Sorbonne, who was inspired by Vanini to write his most "godless" publications.  For this, Sorbonne was burnt alive after his blasphemous tongue had been cut out.  

Trauma-san:
This is an ignorant statement that has been thouroughly explained by every religion I'm familiar with.  My particular branch of Christianity has no problem answer this one, I doubt any other religion would have a problem answering it either.

My religion holds that the entire reason we are here on earth, is to be allowed the freedom to choose our own destiny, to choose right over wrong.  So, we are also free to choose wrong instead of right.  Simple as that.  If we lived in a perfect world, that god had made perfect, since yes, he could; we would be unable to progress, since we'd merely be slaves to his perfect rule.  On earth, we have that choice that we didn't have before.  We even believe that we lived in that state with him before we journeyed to earth.  we are on earth to grow, and learn things we couldn't learn in perfection.  Kind of like; kids tell their parents a million times not to do drugs, and that's perfectly genuine wisdom... it's the same thing god would tell them.  Kids never learn that it's true, though, until they experience drugs for themselves.  We're in a similar situation on earth. Peace~

Ant:
Here is where you arguement died.  You say every religion has thoroughly explained why this statement is wrong.  You then say it is wrong because we are here on earth with the FREEDOM to choose our own destiny.

No religion has fully explained this arguement they have only assumed their answer to be correct.

The assumption is that we all have the freedom to do as we will.  But it is just that an assumption.  No religion nor any being has proven free will exists yet the foundations of MOST religion rely on free will.  On the contrary a number of individual's have provided sufficient evidence to prove free will does not exist.

Specifically citing past Christians...  

Let's begin with St. Augustine:

"But now the fact is that man is not good, and does not have it in his power to be good; either he does not see how he should be, or he does and may not will to be so"

"My mind is disturbed by the following question: if sins spring from those souls that God has created, but those souls come from God, how is it possible except for sings to indirectly redound on God?" from De Libero Arbitrio


Now from Martin Luther:

"If we admit omniscience and omnipotence, it naturally follows without question that we are not made, nor do we live and do anything through ourselves, but only through his omnipotence - God's omniscience and omnipotence flatly contradict the freedom of our will - All beings are forced with inevitable consistency to regonize that we become what we are not by our free will, but by necessity" from De servo arbitrio

"Therefore we find it equally inscribed in the hearts of all that there is no such thing as free will, although this conviction is obscured by so many assertions to the contrary and by manifold authorities."

Essentially Martin Luther makes the same statement.  Vanini put it simply in the beginning by saying God is either not omnipotent or is cruel.  This implies God either does not have the power to make the world free of sin, or if he is all powerful then he desired to create a world with sin.

To prove your arguement you have to prove the existance of free will.  That so far has not been proven only assumed.  Therefore, this statement is not ignorant nor has it been fully countered.  

Trauma-san:
I would propose that you don't understand religion.  Peace~

Ant:
Yo I feel the need to say that while I argue with you a good amount, I also agree with you on a lot of things.

So I don't mean to seem as if I am attacking you personally.  Not that you have taken it as such, but to mention it just in case.

But to proceed from here.  Your final arguement is a bit lacking.  Its a vague statement with no definite meaning.  For instance, I could say "you don't understand blah blah blah" what exactly does that prove.  

When I made my statement I was merely criticizing your arguement.  However, you are attempting to discredit my arguement by attacking me.  

To say I don't understand religion is not the issue at hand.  Its irrelevant.  I could cite my knowledge about religion but it has nothing to do with this arguement.  I created a point and backed it up both in my own words and with citations from other christians, nevermind the evidence brought forth by non christians.   Instead of refuting my point you just deem me ignorant.  

Well thats an easy way to side step the issue and if you wish to then so be it.  Your only counter arguement was that God gave humanity freedom to do as they will.  But that arguement assumes free will exists.  In order to effectively argue your point you would have to prove the existance of free will.

And before proceeding futher, the freedom to do as you will is not the same as the freedom to will.  It is quite obvious I can do what I wish, but whether or not I can will what I will is a different matter all together.  As proposed by Martin Luther, Emmanuel Kant, St. Augustine, and best explained by Arthur Schopenheur among others.

I think at the very least I have provided a slight amount of evidence to support my claim.  I fail to see what evidence you have brought forth other than assumptions about my knowledge.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page