posted September 16, 2006 04:30 PM            

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I thought I made it very clear
that I don't expect anyone to believe me.

We are all messengers of God.
We all have things to teach,
and things we are ignorant of.
Is that so difficult to hear?

I do not claim to know more than I have said.
I claim to know one or two things,
and I have expressed them in no uncertain terms.
You are free to take it personally,
and think of me what you will.

I respect your right to disagree,
and I respect your right to be wrong.
(Yes, it is possible to be wrong.)

I reserve my own right to disagree,
to believe my disagreement is more than opinion,
and to tell you so in no uncertain terms,
whether you wish to hear it or not.

I can say "you are ignorant",
and you can say "you are a hippocrite".
I will not blame you for thinking it.
But I will admire you for expressing it,
frankly and without dissimulation.

It is not personal.
Let's get over ourselves, shall we?
That is the whole point, after all.

- S

posted September 16, 2006 07:49 PM            

I maintain that we ought to use LOGIC
to answer the question of Free Will,
and not rely on arguments like,
"I want this to be true,"
"It feels good/right to think of this as true,"
"It would not fit my preconceived notion of God if this were not true,"
or "It would result in social chaos if this were taught to people,
therefore, it cannot possibly be true,".

You know what I think.
Here is what I base my thinking upon.

"Everything must have a reason for being such as it is,
and for not being otherwise than it is."
- The Principle of Sufficient Reason

This is the first principle of logic,
upon which all knowledge is founded.
If anything can be said to be true,
this can be said to be true.
If this cannot be said to be true,
nothing can be said to be true,
for all reason is based on this principle.

Everything has a reason....

To locate the reason for a thing
within a person,
is only to beg the question,
"what is the reason for the person?",
for a person is also a thing,
determined like any other,
by a reason which transcends it.

posted September 16, 2006 11:36 PM              

"You are ignorant.
But don't take that personally."

In my perception by your choices, you are the one who turned the discussion to take on a personal tone, when you insulted other's intelligence, reasoning skills, and spiritual beliefs. If not, we might be having a free-flowing harmonious sharing of ideas which perhaps might have opened new perceptions.

I never made a claim of absolute knowledge of truth, so how could I be disputed as wrong? I was never coming from a position of thinking or saying I was right about anything.
You say, 'it is possible to be wrong', as if it's something I haven't entertained or wouldn't consider, when I've been questioning from a place of humility all along.
And it appeared to me, that others here were speaking from humility themselves, which is why I feel it's important to dispute conclusions you are making, that have no basis on what truly has transpired in this thread.

I never said you, as a person, were a hypocrite.
I pointed out ways in which it seemed your actions were being hypocritical.
And by that I mean it didn't seem as if the the Love you proclaim through your beliefs show in your communication with others here.

I believe people's relationship with others...how they treat and care for their fellow beings,
is a major reflection of how they perceive/relate to God themselves.
Are they vengeful people? Often they perceive a vengeful God.
Are they controlling?
They most often see God as controlling.
Are they judgemental/condemning?
They most often believe in a judgemental/condemning God.
Manipulative?
Utilitarian?
Compassionate?
Forgiving? etc..
It seems to be intertwined.

Something I'm curious about. Why not just talk about what you believe? Why do you feel the need to lower other's to heighten your's? Why is that necessary?

posted September 17, 2006 01:00 AM              

I also don't find it necessary to tell others that they are wrong. Especially when it comes to God. Because in telling someone else that they are wrong you are implying only one thing, that you are right. When it comes to God the chances are pretty good that we are all wrong. In fact we have a 50/50 chance of being all right too. So we should, if nothing else, give each person on this thread credit for at least thinking about these things that pertain to God because on the most part in our world, many people don't think on these things. For that reason alone all of our thoughts, beliefs, opinions and specualations should be taken into consideration. We are all seekers and because we are seeking we are all bound to know something of truth regarding God. Mainly because he told us through Jesus," seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be shall be opened."

None of us here are ignorant. We have all thought, studied, meditated on and read things regarding God. And all of us here are in many ways ignorant because God is the great unknown. Many things about God are mysteries and we cannot possibly explain a mystery.

If you want strictly logic then you wouldn't even believe in God in the first place, HSC. There are many philosophers who in fact would tell you that the belief in something you cannot see or prove is totally illogical. We can neither see nor prove in any concrete way that a spiritual being we call God exists and some philosophers have said that if God created everything and brought it all into being then he would question how God came to be. Who created God? Because this philosopher believed that everything has to have an origin.

There are far too many things regarding God that escape the logic and reasoning of humankind. Free will is one of those of things.

Now having said that I found what I thought to be a very interesting article that I will post following this. Hopefully we can discuss this from the standpoint of our limitations regarding free will and exactly how free we are by choice.

It could well be that the problem we are having here is that we are approaching it from different directions, but ultimately may also arrive to same conclusion.

posted September 17, 2006 01:05 AM              

In order to understand Hume's contribution, we will analyse his position and also examine it from the point of view of Kant. Kant built on Hume's work and developed his own thoughts concerning causality and liberty. Despite their differences we shall see that the two accounts are very similar.

Enlightenment

Hume was an enlightenment philosopher. The enlightenment was a period in European history (18th Century) when many developments converged leading to revolutionary change. The story of the enlightenment is one of increasing freedoms that laid the foundations of modern western society.

The key change was in the political and intellectual authority of the church. In medieval times the church had supreme authority, however, this was diluted by the ascendancy of Protestantism. As the source of dogma was the church, reduced religious power led in turn to a greater freedom of thought as well as a wider loss of faith in traditional sources of authority. Thus intellectual enquiry took off as scepticism and doubt replaced dogma and acceptance. The enlightenment was radically free both in the thoughts expressed and in the areas covered.

This was the birth of the scientific method. It was understood that the method by which the world was examined was as important as 'facts' about it. As Lessing said "The real power of reason lies not in the possession of truth, but in the acquisition of truth".

There were also a panoply of developments in science, technology and society that contributed to the ferment of the enlightenment. The chief contribution of these was to make philosophy and ideas the concern of more and more people. Indeed some Dutch merchants became rich from distributing books banned in other countries.

However, the new intellectual freedoms were not without constraint. The new tradition of scepticism provided an environment whereby ideas were honed by constant attack and modification - the classic scientific peer review system was beginning.

Whilst the scientific approach of observing the universe to make conjectures and generalisations was significant and did debunk some old-world ideas (e.g. the motion of the planets), the real impact was the use of radical scepticism to reason and argue the facts in an attempt to prove what is known. This is the context within which Hume developed his ideas and his rigorously empirical approach: to apply the scientific method to philosophy.

Hume (1711-76) worked towards the end of the wider European enlightenment and was a central figure in the Scottish enlightenment (1740-1800). There were many links between Scottish thinkers both across disciplines and with the European movement in France. This interdisciplinary approach gave the Scottish enlightenment a great practicality. This can be seen in Hume's approach: "let your science be human and as such have a direct reference to action and society" (Enquiries: 4).

Hume rejected traditional metaphysics and the rationalism of the early enlightenment. He denied the concept of innate ideas and even the foundationalist method itself. Instead he favoured the tabula rasa approach and sought to understand the human mind scientifically - the subtitle to his Treatise was 'an attempt to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects'.

In this approach Hume is arguably one of the first modern philosophers because of his rejection of religious, dogmatic or mythical explanations in favour of the scientific method. More than this, Hume is ahead of his time by introducing the kernels of the post-modernist ideas of constructs and personal perspectives constraining the perceptions and freedom of the individual.

Analysis of Humean Philosophy

The problem of free will is the problem of reconciling determinism and freedom to make sense of morality. In order to understand Hume's contribution to the problem, we need to understand his view of cause and effect and how that relates to human freedom of action. In turn, Hume's conclusions concerning cause and effect have their basis in his epistemology and his wider philosophical approach.

Hume's approach to his philosophy is as a scientist to his experiment: "a cautious observation of human life …men's behaviour in company, in affairs, and in their pleasures" (Treatise: xix). Hume argues that the role of philosophy is to understand the mind and thus the observer in order to establish what can be known.

As an empiricist, Hume discusses what we know. He divides this into two 'species' of philosophy, dealing with sensory experience, and the passions. Experience tells us about the world, and passions motivate us to act and both are required to comprehend human nature.

Hume believes that "we may divide all the perceptions of the mind into classes which are distinguished by different degrees of force and vivacity" (Enquiries: 12). Experience reaches us as atomic units of perception (e.g. greenness), which are compounded into complex impressions (e.g. apple). These in turn give rise to mental impressions (e.g. orchards). Impressions can be recorded as memories and ultimately provide the raw material for the imagination. This schema of the mind shows an increasing extrapolation from the raw perception, becoming less vivid with each step.

Having established the source of all thoughts is experience, Hume lays out his 'principles of association', the concept that all thoughts are linked. He describes resemblance (sharing a common property), contiguity (consecutive) and cause and effect as the three links between thoughts. Cause and effect describes two events that consistently appear in such a way as to lead you to believe that one leads to the other. Thus, thoughts are not random; they are derived from experience and are interlinked.

This leads to a critical understanding about Hume. Hume argues that the associations cannot be known, they are not epistemic objects, but rather a metaphysical description of how the human mind processes experience. This must be a metaphysical point, because the same concepts and associations appear in many languages, Hume argues. There is: "some universal principle, which had [sic] an equal influence on all mankind" (Enquiries: 18).

Thus Hume does not deny cause and effect, but considers it a metaphysical phenomenon we cannot know. We believe in cause and effect, but we cannot prove these things - our knowledge is too limited.

Having considered the observer, Hume constructs his epistemology. He divides knowledge into 'relations of ideas' and 'matters of fact'. This is termed 'Hume's Fork'. Relations of ideas are definitions or functions that are "intuitively or demonstratively certain"; for example 'Doris the spinster is an unmarried female'. The certainty of the assertion is "discoverable by the mere operation of thought" and that it is not dependent on anything existing. If one considers them not being true a logical contradiction will result. If I imagined Doris being married, but also being a spinster I have contradicted the meaning of spinster

Matters of fact however, are contingent on the universe for their truth, and so one can imagine the opposite being true without invoking a logical contradiction. If I describe my pain on putting my hand in a fire I am talking from experience. I could imagine putting my hand in a fire without experiencing pain. It might be unusual, but it contradicts no logical rules.

Hume has formed the basis for his philosophy: that experience is the source of all knowledge. He has also drawn boundaries to the human understanding and established a test for what is knowable: his fork. We can see Hume as a scientist seeking to understand what his apparatus can tell him about the world, even though in this case the apparatus is the human mind. How the human mind is constrained by its functioning relates directly to whether free will is constrained. These constraints can be seen in our use of the notion of cause and effect.

Cause and Effect

"Hume's account of causation is, rightly, the best known and most influential part of his philosophy" (Quinton). Hume's conclusions regarding causality underpin his resolution of the problem of free will. "All reasonings [sic] concerning matters of fact seem to be founded on the relation of cause and effect. By means of that relation alone can we go beyond the evidence of our memory and senses" (Enquiries: 26).

Hume goes to great lengths to prove that we cannot know of cause and effect a priori. He states that "our reason, unassisted by experience, can never draw any inference concerning real existence and matter of fact" (Enquiries: 23). He argues that if the cause is to be known a priori then one of three things must be true:

The effect is contained in the cause
Cause X entails effect Y
There is a logical, necessary connection between X and Y
He then proceeds to demolish each point using the example of bread and the expectation that it will lead to nourishment.

The experience of seeing the bread and the subsequent experience of nourishment are separate events. One may tend to follow the other, but the event of nourishment is not contained within the event of observing the bread.
Bread does not entail nourishment. We can imagine bread that would not nourish without invoking a logical contradiction: "Reason is incapable of any such variation" (Enquiries: 36). This is Hume's fork.
There is no necessary connection between bread and nourishment. Aside from the criticism in (2), there is the additional issue that the future does not have to be like the past - the problem of induction.
The problem of induction is the key problem with the empirical approach to cause and effect. The issue is simple; if there is no necessary connection between cause and effect, then how can we predict the future based upon past experience? The answer is that we cannot with certainty; the future will only probably resemble the past. Despite this, human reasoning depends heavily on the assumption of a 'necessary connection' between events, so what is it that makes us think in this way?

If we are a tabula rasa, and cannot logically deduce cause and effect, then the source of our concept of cause and effect must be experience. Using Hume's schema of the mind we can see that basic perceptions arrive as a simple procession of events. As we form mental impressions we notice resemblance and contiguity between events and this is passed into memory. As our body of memory grows we notice that linked events appear 'constantly conjoined' and form a habit such that on the occurrence of one we are immediately drawn to expect the other.

Seeking to identify the source of the notion of 'necessary connection' Hume argues that it is "derived not of sensation, but of reflection" (Quinton). When a constant conjunction of events creates a customary association of ideas in the mind the imagination forms the concept of a necessary linkage.

It is at this point that Hume identifies himself as a determinist, rejecting the notion of chance and arguing that nature is ruled by cause and effect, rendering it predetermined. Crucially, we are ignorant of metaphysics, nature's 'secret powers', seeing only the effects, and not the causes. In order to be able to make sense of perception we infer a 'necessary connection' from our experience. However, if Hume is a determinist how can he reconcile this with freedom and thus preserve morality?

Detailed analysis of Hume's account of freedom

Hume believes that the only explanation for the length of time the argument concerning liberty and necessity has continued is that there must be a confusion of terms. "The whole dispute is one of words and all men have really always been agreed on the matter" (Enquiries: Selby-Bigge Introduction: 12)

First, Hume examines necessity, stating "Ideas of necessity and causation arise entirely from the uniformity observable in the operations of nature" (Enquiries: 64). The idea of necessary connection is derived from reflection upon sensations and the consequent forming of habits.

Hume then asks why we cannot apply this method to moral philosophy as well as empirical philosophy. Firstly he points out that repeated exposure to people teaches us what actions to anticipate from which motives. "There are regularities in human nature that produce the same sort of causal inferences we make about the rest of nature" (Radcliffe: 23). Thus it seems that we apply the lessons of experience in both cases. Secondly he argues that society and the individual depend on the predictability of human nature, how else could we make laws or pursue happiness?

Hume argues that the conjunction between cause and effect is the same as that between motives and voluntary action. He declares "The same experienced union has the same effect on the mind, we may change the names of things, but their nature and operation on the understanding do not change" (Enquiries: 70).

It is true, Hume acknowledges, that we feel differently about the connection between cause and effect and motive and action. However, he argues, now that we understand the experiential basis for the notion of necessity we can "ascribe necessity to the determinations of the will" (Enquiries: 71)

The central confusion, as Hume sees it, is that people feel necessity in the connection of external objects, but do not feel necessity in the voluntary actions of the mind. It is this confusion that leads directly to "a false sensation or seeming experience of liberty or indifference" (Enquiries: 72). As defined here, the necessity of an action (of matter or mind) is not a property of the cause, but exists in the thoughts of the intelligent being perceiving the action. These thoughts are required to infer the existence of that action from preceding objects and supply the feeling of necessity.

The principle of liberty requires that there be no necessity in the linkage between motives and actions. Thus, Hume argues, liberty is simply the absence of the inference that is our conception of necessity. "It is a certain looseness or indifference that is felt in the passing (or not passing) from the idea of one object to a succeeding one" (enquiries: 72).

However, as Hume has observed already, we learn from the constant conjunction of motives and actions to make these inferences. He argues that when we reflect on the previous actions of ourselves that we don't feel this "looseness". We can also commonly infer the motives of another from their actions.

Thus, it is only at the time of acting that the connection is less clear to us. As necessity means 'to take linked objects as causally connected', we therefore conclude that there is no necessity at the time of acting. We feel that our actions are subject to our will and that the will is subject to nothing.

Hence, even though we might feel liberty within ourselves, we simultaneously accept that an external observer could infer our actions from our motives. Indeed if they could not we would conclude a defect of their knowledge rather than question the link between motive and action.

Having clearly ascertained the implications of this definition of necessity, Hume goes on to question the meaning of liberty. He first identifies some meanings that do not apply:

there is little or no connection between action and motives and circumstances
one does not follow with a degree of uniformity from the other
there is no inference by which we can conclude the other
These points are all very significant to the problem of free will. Hume denies there is no connection between motive and action, and that the connection is not uniform and that it is not possible to infer one from the other.

Hence Hume is asserting a determined, regular connection between motive and action, in precisely the same way as he does with cause and effect. Thus all of nature, including ourselves are subject to causality.

In the same way as he argued that chance was not a 'causer' (Enquiries, Section 6), Hume then argues that liberty, rather than the opposite of a constriction (which can affect subsequent events), is merely the opposite of necessity and can thus not affect future events. Liberty itself causes nothing and so is merely the absence of a deduced connection between events. Hume defines liberty: "By liberty we mean a power of acting, or not acting, according to the determinations of the will" (Enquiries: 73). Hence we are free, but only if a "free act is defined as an act a person can do if they choose" (Radcliffe: p63)

To resolve the problem of free will, Hume considers morality. Morality requires freedom in order for personal accountability, however, Hume proposes that determinism is also a requirement. He points out the different attitudes shown to negligence versus pre-meditated actions. The whole idea of law and governance is based upon the supposition that the character motivates the action; that our actions are influenced.

If we were totally free, we could never make sense of morality nor could we if we were completely determined. However, we do make sense of morality, and thus, morality requires compatibilism, both determinism and liberty.

Hume does not attempt to logically solve the compatibility problem of determinism and free will. As an empirical philosopher the issue is solved for him, because neither can be observed in actuality. As an analytical philosopher the issue is solved as both concepts exist in a compatible fashion in the world as we find it. Essentially he has turned the debate into a dispute over definitions: "Whether we are free depends on how we define the terms" (Radcliffe: p63)

Original angle

Having offered an account of Hume's analysis of freedom, we are now in a position to look at his contribution to the problem of free will.

Before Hume, Descartes asserted that liberty was total, that we thought whatever we wanted and that mentality was not causally constrained (or even physical).

Hume bridged ancient and modern philosophy, by arguing for compatibilism, and hence accepting to a limited degree that mentality was physical. In this way, Hume's contribution was profound, paving the way for all scientific accounts of the mind, from philosophical physicalism to neuroscience.

Kant is often seen as the first of the true modern philosophers, and he credits Hume with 'awakening me from my dogmatic slumbers'. At the time, morality was at least as important as empiricism, as society struggled with the 'how to act' vacuum left by the collapse of religious authority. Both men sought to make sense of morality and hence examined freedom and necessity.

However, the fundamental difference between the two, is that Kant was a rationalist who believed in innate ideas, whilst Hume believed that we are but a blank slate. Kant wanted to ground the notion of liberty on a firmer footing than this, but acknowledging the constraints of the physical world (causality), Kant located liberty in what he termed the 'transcendental ego'

Kant essentially describes two realms in his philosophy, that of our perceptions, the subjective, epistemtic world, and the 'real' objective world that transcends our limited perception. In the case of the ego, we have a self that is physical and causally constrained, but we also have a transcendental ego that can supersede this restriction. Thus, whilst Hume sees that we extrapolate patterns from experience, Kant argues that we must have these patterns as innate ideas in order to make sense of experience in the first place.

Kant interprets the need for freedom as a need to transcend the causal. However, confronted with the same dilemma as Hume (that total freedom does not confer moral responsibility) Kant needs to set limits on this freedom. These limits are drawn by the fact that in transcending the individual, the transcendental ego links all individuals. It is fundamental to the human experience and as such we cannot simply choose for ourselves, but it is our duty to choose for all mankind "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law" (Metaphysics of Ethics). Thus, we are free to choose, but only within the framework of Kant's deontological ethics.

Both men construct a compatabilist account of necessity and freedom. Hume argues that we are free to act in accordance with our characters; the will chooses from the available actions compatible with our character. Kant also believes that we are totally free to choose, but his restriction is that we ought to act in accordance with goodwill. Goodwill is our intention to act according to our duty: to act in the best interests of the transcendental ego, which is to act as if you acted for everyone "all agents pursue their freely chosen ends to the extent compatible with a like freedom for all" (Routledge)

The fundamental differences between Kant and Hume concern sources. For Hume, the source of knowledge is experience, whereas for Kant it is only possible to make sense of experience because innate ideas provide the 'epistemic conditions' for us to know of objects in the world. This boils down to a division between the two men's metaphysics and epistemology. For Hume, cause and effect is a metaphysical phenomenon that governs the world, but remains hidden in the 'secret powers' of nature. Hence we can never know of cause and effect, we can believe in it, but cannot make it an epistemic object. For Kant the issue is the other way around, cause and effect as a metaphysical phenomenon is unknowable and hence to make sense of experience we must have innate knowledge of cause and effect.

This highlights how Hume and Kant address the same issues and come to the same conclusions, but approach from different directions. Hume's approach is to observe the world and therefore deduce how we must observe. Kant's approach is to deduce from the things that we observe the innate concepts required in order for us to observe in that way.

Both men realise that constrained freedom is required in order for morality to make sense. In order for freedom to have meaning we must weaken the link of determinism, but in order for our actions to be a reflection of ourselves, this freedom must be constrained.

Kant describes a transcendent ego that is different from the causally constrained physical ego. The transcendental ego, is essentially a universal human ego and as such our freedom as an individual is constrained by others. Hume has constructed a case whereby we freely choose from actions determined by the will. Again, in this constraint, we appear similar to such an extent that our actions are rendered predictable to others. Hume argues that there is some form of universal human nature, Kant that there is a transcendent connection between us all, but both hint at something intrinsically human and common about our experience of the world.

Although Kant argues for innate ideas and Hume argues for extrapolation from experience, both argue that something beyond our immediate sensory perception is required in order to make sense of reality. The concept of liberty, however derived, is just another one of these conditions required for us to experience the world as we do.

Conclusion

Firstly, we must acknowledge the very significant contribution of Hume to the problem of free will. His conclusions sowed the seeds of scientific investigation of the individual, from neuroscience to eliminative materialism. Hume can be seen as the first modern analytic philosopher, reviling mysticism and accepting the uncomfortable truth that individuals are physically limited and determined.

Secondly, we must acknowledge the scale of Hume's contribution to Kant's work on freedom. Kant left Hume's precepts and conclusions unchanged, but explored a different method of reaching one from the other. The enlightenment was the realisation that the method mattered more than the facts generated. Befitting this the only separation between Kant and Hume on freedom, is the method by which they reached their shared conclusions.

Bibliography
Enquiries: Enquiries concerning human understanding: oxford university press, 3rd ed
Treatise: A treatise of human nature: being an attempt to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects

Secondary Texts:
Radcliffe: On Hume, Elizabeth S.Radcliffe (2000)
Quinton: Hume, Anthony Quinton (1998)
Routledge: Kant entry in Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy

posted September 17, 2006 03:15 PM            

Logic would dictate that because you feel yourself a prophet of sorts that you'd want as wide a listenership as possible. You will not accomplish that by being insulting. Your goal is to be taken seriously, and to be listened to. Do you think God would prefer the message He prepared for you to only be delivered to those who are capable of responding positively to the way you present yourself? I would think that God would want to market himself to all people equally as He did when He sent His Son.

Frankly, the greater the intellect of your listener, the more grace you are going to have to offer in trying to win his/her attention. Wouldn't it be a shame to only win the confidence of fools?

He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm. -Proverbs 13:20

The rest of your post is simple goading. I don't think you'd enjoy debate on foolishness.

This is not a biblical quote:
"Straight is the gate,
and narrow is the way that leads to salvation,
and few there be that find it."

It sounds like one, but it isn't.

quote:

---

I maintain that we ought to use LOGIC
to answer the question of Free Will,
and not rely on arguments like,
"I want this to be true,"
"It feels good/right to think of this as true,"
"It would not fit my preconceived notion of God if this were not true,"
or "It would result in social chaos if this were taught to people,
therefore, it cannot possibly be true,".

---

It would result in social chaos if that were taught to people. You can't dismiss an argument without any justification. That's not logical. In order to dismiss an argument, you must disprove it. Isn't that how logic works?

quote:

---

"Everything must have a reason for being such as it is,
and for not being otherwise than it is."
- The Principle of Sufficient Reason

---

posted September 17, 2006 04:55 PM              

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Everything must have a reason for being such as it is,
and for not being otherwise than it is."
- The Principle of Sufficient Reason
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AG Answered:

quote:

---

I don't think that this principle makes your point. Just because things have cause doesn't mean that God is the cause. Once again it goes to God's motivation. What would God's motivation be to have someone act in ways that are completely deplorable? What would God's motivation be to have anyone act outside of the way Jesus, his son, instructed them to?

---

The philosophers, Hume and Kant in the article I posted above would agree with you I think, AG. They stated that while we can easily see the effect we cannot always know the cause. In fact most times we don't know the cause. There are things in our lives, our world and our universe that just happen and the reason they happen is unknown to us. We know these things exist and yet we cannot reason why they exist or why they happen. We only see the effects of those things but the why escapes our reason and logic.

As much as some of would hate to admit it our capabilites of reason and logic are extremely limited in the face of the vast unknown.

posted September 17, 2006 11:12 PM            

You are indeed humble,
when you freely admit that you do not know.
So, why are you so indignant,
when I freely agree with you?

"I never truckled;
I never took off the hat to Fashion
and held it out for pennies.
By God, I told them the truth."
- Frank Norris

"Tell the truth and you will be lonely."
- Mark Twain

"Since when was genius found respectable?"
- Elizabeth Barrett Browning

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas.
If your ideas are any good,
you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
- Howard Aiken

"Everything that I did in life that was worthwhile,
I caught hell for."
- Earl Warren

posted September 18, 2006 12:03 AM            

>A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult. -Proverbs 12:16

Are you calling Lia a fool?

>Logic would dictate that because you feel yourself a prophet of sorts that you'd want as wide a listenership as possible.

I agree, but, what I want, and what is possible within reason are two different things. My highest priority is not to be heard by as many people as possible. If that were the case, I would tell you only what you wanted to hear. My highest priority is to speak the truth.

>You will not accomplish that by being insulting.

In any case, I am not being insulting.
A doctor is not insulting you, when he says "You have cancer".
Nor is a philosopher insulting you when he says, "You have ignorance".
I realize, it is not something a person desires to hear,
but it is the first step to recovery.

> Your goal is to be taken seriously, and to be listened to.

Says who? My goal is to speak the truth.
How you take me, or whether you take me at all,
is not my concern, but yours.

> Do you think God would prefer the message He prepared for you to only be delivered to those who are capable of responding positively to the way you present yourself?

Who has ears to hear, let them hear.

> I would think that God would want to market himself to all people equally as He did when He sent His Son.

I assume you are referring to Jesus,
who was rejected by nearly everyone,
and left to die upon a cross?

> Frankly, the greater the intellect of your listener, the more grace you are going to have to offer in trying to win his/her attention.

I dont understand your logic here.
I think an intellectual would put his/her feelings aside,
and listen to my reasoning.
He/She would not need me to "grace" his/her ego,
in order to consent to listen to reason.

> Wouldn't it be a shame to only win the confidence of fools?

It would. Which is why I do not flatter people,
for the confidence of fools is won through flattery.

> The rest of your post is simple goading.

I disagree.

> I don't think you'd enjoy debate on foolishness.

And yet, isnt that what you've been debating?
I do not think you are wrong to do so.
One must understand the nature of foolishness,
before one can understand the nature of wisdom.

>This is not a biblical quote:
"Strait is the gate,
and narrow is the way that leads to salvation,
and few there be that find it."
It sounds like one, but it isn't.

"Because strait is the gate,
and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life,
and few there be that find it."
- Matt 7:14

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I maintain that we ought to use LOGIC
to answer the question of Free Will,
and not rely on arguments like,
"I want this to be true,"
"It feels good/right to think of this as true,"
"It would not fit my preconceived notion of God if this were not true,"
or "It would result in social chaos if this were taught to people,
therefore, it cannot possibly be true,".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>It would result in social chaos if that were taught to people. You can't dismiss an argument without any justification. That's not logical. In order to dismiss an argument, you must disprove it. Isn't that how logic works?

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.
I am not dismissing the argument that determinism would result in social chaos.
I do not believe that it would, but, to prove or disprove,
or even to dismiss this concern, is not my business.
At the moment, I am concerned with truth, not utility.
What I disagee with is the notion that,
the argument that something is inexpeditious
is a valid reason to declare it untrue.
I did not think to disprove this, because I figured that,
simply to state the assertion clearly,
would make its ridiculousness self-evident.
If you still need me to disprove it I will.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Everything must have a reason for being such as it is,
and for not being otherwise than it is."
- The Principle of Sufficient Reason
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>I don't think that this principle makes your point. Just because things have cause doesn't mean that God is the cause.

First things first. My first point is that man is not the cause.
Man is a finite entity, and therefore,
cannot be the transcendant reason for his own nature.
If the principle I stated is valid (which you have not yet considered)
then, it certainly proves my point,
that nothing finite can be the penultimate reason for itself.

> Once again it goes to God's motivation.

No, it does not. I am not concerned with God's motivation.
I am still trying to discover the evidence for God's actions.
Why "He" performs them is not, or not yet, my concern.
If you think that we must have a motive,
before we can have a conviction,
you are already imagining that you understand God's reasons,
and that you can determine what God would or would not do,
based on your personal conception of his motives.

> What would God's motivation be to have someone act in ways that are completely deplorable?

A logical answer for this would be
"God's motives, if He has any, must be equally deplorable".
But you seem intent on dismissing this possibility without a thought,
despite the self-evident fact that the world in which we live,
which we say was created by God, is full of deplorable actions.

> What would God's motivation be to have anyone act outside of the way Jesus, his son, instructed them to?

posted September 18, 2006 12:40 AM              

Because anyone who believes their Mystical Truth (Mystical. We aren't discussing pragmatics, so why treat them as such by trying to hone them into a rational order which they would certainly defy?) is ultimate and conclusive, will eventually be proven otherwise, because this truth is in expansion and evolution as we write. In ever movement, just beyond us.
It won't be pinned down by you or anyone.
Milleniums of grasping for it...and perhaps we're getting closer...but as we get closer is when it metamorphosizes into the next?
Is that shining star we see, what we are seeing or merely the reflection of thousands of years ago?

I cannot give you a mathematical equation to sum up how I surmised man has free will.

I can give you one observational example (one of a lifetime of observation) that intuited this persuasion within me.
The situation in Congo, Africa is one.
People, especially children, are dying by the hundreds daily there.
Would God will it?
Put yourself there, and imagine holding your starving, disease-ridden child in your arms, and tell me you would believe me it was God's will. Not man's. That God willed your child to suffer such a painful, drawn out death, in an apathetic world.
There are choices open...that might easily ease the suffering. Man chooses to turn away. Man does.
This will of ours is a gift we forsake.
The will given is not of ego...it is ego which forsakes it. We don't want the heavy responsibility. We turn our ears and eyes away, and leave it to God.

You'll probably think that this example is too 'emotional' and so not logical.
It is equally logical, but because it is expressed with emotion, you'll probably dismiss the logic.
Logic is all around~~
strip malls, Silicone Valley,
liposuction, Walmart, skyscrapers,
oil rigs, Vegas, child prostitution,
anorexia nervosa.

Emotions are as worthy as intellect.
They are both of our Souls and carry beyond with us.
Truth cannot be reached if when excluding one for the other.

But that's just me.

I wouldn't presume.

(said with gentleness, not sarcasm)

posted September 18, 2006 01:31 AM              

I will let Paul do the talking because he can say it much better than I ever could.

1 Corinthians - Chapter 1:18-29

The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: " I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside."

Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish? For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith.

For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something, so that no human being might boast before God.

So much for how much God esteems our worldly wisdom, HSC.

You can only come to truly know God and what God is like in your spirit and how he touches your being and your life. You come to know that God is Love. It is not just that God loves, it is that God IS Love. We can only love because God loved us first. That is the only truth we need to know. All else will flow from that truth.

The mind cannot fathom what the spirit knows.

posted September 18, 2006 02:10 AM              

You made some very good points.

Regarding the example you gave of what is happening in the Congo in Africa now that is so true what you said and anyone who could believe that God would will such suffering and devastation on people, especially children, is stuck back in time when people believed in a punishing God.

There is kind of a catch though. There is God's direct Will in that he wills something to be and it is. That is God's intervening Will. Then there is also what is called God's permissable Will, or the things that God allows to happen without intervention. It is that permissable will of God's that humankind finds the hardest to understand. Why does God allow things to happen that hurt people and the world? The answer to that is Free Will. God will not intervene in our free will. Only we can control and reign in our free will or let it run wild.

God does not directly will those things like are taking place in the Congo now to happen. Allow it to happen? Yes. But only because he esteems our free will so much that he will not intervene. He wants us to intervene and put a stop to it. It's our job. He put us here to be caretakers of this world and each other. It is the choices of humankind that were the cause of the effects we see in Africa and other areas of our world. It has to be our choice to change it and make it right.

How free is our free will? As free as we want it to be. Many of us put restrictions on our free will out of love and concern for our fellow humans. We restrict our acts due to our own values and morals and how those acts may effect others as well as ourselves and our world as a whole. Some people don't care how their acts effect others or the world. Are they freer than those of us who do care? I don't think so. Because in not limiting the actions of their free will they are destroying their own souls and creating their own hell.

posted September 18, 2006 02:24 AM            

I dont reject emotional reason. I am not arguing on behalf of stripmalls here. But, nor do I invent a God who corresponds to my emotions, and say that "He" is the same God who created the world. A good God would not create the world. A good God would not create the kind of circumstances which would lead to starving people in Africa, and then leave them in the care of imperfect human wills. My heart, as well as my logic, assures me this is true.

Mirandee -

You have your Paul, I have mine. I may interpret him differently, but this does not mean I take him out of context, unless you mean the context of Church dogma, which is already a grave distortion of the meaning of his words.

As for the wisdom of the world...

The things I am telling you are diametrically opposed to what the VAST majority of peoples, and what every government in the world, believes to be true. This logic transcends the world. While worldy thinking places the causes of things in the world right here in the world, my thinking places the Cause of things in the world squarely outside of the world.

You speak of my ego. Like you, I am only human. I do pride myself on my intelligence and appreciation for reason, and I ought not to do that. I am wrong to take such pride in my gifts, as if, just because they are gifted to me, I am somehow responsible for having created them. If I believed this, then I would be wrong, and it would only go to show that I do not understand the things I wish to teach half as well as I think I do. However, the fact that I do possess them, and the fact that I admit that I possess them, has nothing to do with whether or not I take personal pride in them. That is another matter, and one for which you are probably in no position to judge. I wish to celebrate these gifts in myself, just as I celebrate them in others (for instance, the dozens of thinkers - besided myself - whom I enojoy reading and quoting from). If I say it of myself, do not assume that I say it egotistically, or any differently than I would if I were speaking of someone else who possessed such gifts.

posted September 18, 2006 02:36 AM              

You keep repeating the same things over and over. Don't you ever read one word or take in anything that anyone else is saying. Both Lia and myself stated in our posts that it is humankind who is the cause of the effects through the choices of their free will. Not God.

There is no evil in God. God is good and it is stated that all God created he saw as good, including all of us. But through our own choices, sometimes very evil ones born out of our egos, we have created the mess the world is in and we create the messes our lives may be in to a large degree.

Sorry that you don't see God as being good, HSC. Also sorry that you feel the need to blame everything on God instead of taking any responsibility for what is happening in the world. But that is between you and God to work out.

posted September 18, 2006 02:53 AM              

You claim that they hold rigidly to dogma, which is really not true, and do not look outside of the box, which is not true in many cases, and yet you do the same thing. You hold rigidly to your own formed dogmas and you do not look outside of your own neat little box or take into consideration what others say except the off the wall philosophers that you read - those who claim to follow pagan teachings but also claim at the same time to be Christians ( an oxymoron if I ever heard one).

posted September 18, 2006 03:19 AM            

A good God would not create the circumstances which could lead to such suffering,
and then leave the outcome in the hands of imperfect humans.

This is like taking your own helpless baby and leaving it in a dumpster, next to a bag of crack, in an alley full of crackheads, and saying, "It is your problem, now. I am not responsible for what happens to my baby. I wash my hands with the whole thing. It is up to you, it is your choice. You can overcome your physical and psychological addictions (to the very substance which I have "lovingly" provided for you), or you can do what your minds and bodies (which I myself have "lovingly" designed to be weak and susceptible to temptation) incline you to do, and leave this baby to starve and rot."

That is your "God".

As for me, you think that by acknowledging this, I am abdicating responsibility. You are wrong. If I were abdicating responsibility, I would not be writing these words to you at this very moment, trying to bring understanding into the world. It would be a lot easier for me to look the other way if I believed in a good God, but I do not. I believe it is up to us. Granted, what is up to us is up to God, but that is not a paradox. We must play our parts as He has written them. I am not going to turn my back on Africa just because I know that God has written my part. Perhaps he has written my part as that of a savior, and not a scoundrel. A scoundrel would ignore the problems of others. Do I do this? No, I do not. Therefore, I must not be a scoundrel. Thank God for that much. Unfortuneately, some people are scoundrels. I do not blame them (they are exactly as God made them), or expect them to be any different than they are, but I try to pick up their slack myself.

I hope this makes my position clear. You and others have accused me of shirking my duty several times, and ignored my repeated repudiations of these claims. You continue to assume that, just because I acknowledge God's authorship, I must think that it is okay for me to play the part of a scoundrel. This is not the conclusion to which my way of thinking has brought me. On the contrary, it has brought me to a place where I am able to love and accept everyone for who and what they are.

"Believe, if thou wilt,
that mountains change their place,
but believe not that man changes his nature."
- Mohammed

You ask why God would create us without free will. You imagine that, if this is the case, He must be a sadist. I do not attribute motives to God. I do not see God as a person, with motives. I see God as the First Cause. That is all.

posted September 18, 2006 03:32 AM            

Enough with the assumptions.
I never said you follow rigid Church dogmas.
Hence, the rest of the things you accused me of,
on that account, are all equally mistaken.

My understanding is just that - my understanding.
It is not based on dogmas, or what others have said.
I keep and repeat what resonates and makes sense to me.
I do not believe any thinker just because he/she is famous.
Famous thinkers often disagree among themselves.

I am asserting my understanding,
in a matter which I have understood,
and rejecting your theories
in a matter which you admit to not having understood.
This does not make me close minded.

While the Church expects others to believe its teachings without reason,
and then condemns them if they do not,
I do just the opposite.

I provide you with reasons,
and, then, if you still do not accept my teaching,
I do not blame you,
for you are only doing what your heart and mind inclines you to do.

So, yeah,
I am quite different from organized religion.

posted September 18, 2006 03:35 AM            

quote:

---

The point is that it happens,
and, if it happens, God does it.

---

If something happens, God does it? If man can create systems that cause actions to happen without man's constant input, then it's pretty safe to say that God can as well. We see evidence of this throughout nature. People have been looking for ways to manufacture perpetual motion (for years), but they need only look at the tides to see it's already been done quite handily. It's not unreasonable to consider the possibility of God creating these systems, and letting them work. One of these systems can be our ability to think for ourselves. If this is true, then God's will only comes into play in our lives when we ask for it to. To me, this seems like a more reasonable explanation.

posted September 18, 2006 03:46 AM            

I can see how you would have thought I was saying that you are a supporter of Church dogma. I did not express myself very clearly. I suggested that the only context which I could be taking Paul out of is the rigid and distorted context of Church dogma. This would imply that, if I am taking him out of a context in which you see him, the context in which you see him must be the context in which the Church sees him. This was a mistake on my part. I was foolish to suggest that the Church has a monopoly on the erroneous reading of scripture. Many people misread Paul, and put him in a context in which he never put himself. (In fact, unless he is misquoted in the epistles as they are handed down to us, Paul himself seems to misunderstand and/or disagree with his own thinking in a number of places.) So, that was my mistake, and I can see how it would have made you think that I was saying you are affiliated with organized religion. I apologize for my carelessness.

posted September 18, 2006 04:03 AM            

I see what you are saying. But, if man creates something, and it operates independently of him, he is still responsible for everything it does after he lets it out of his hands. This is one reason why I do not advocate having children. However, when a man creates anything, he does so out of his own imperfectness, so, whatever he creates, will only bear the stamp of his imperfectness. He is not ultimately responsible for this, because he makes his choice based on the amount of character and intelligence, or lack thereof, with which he is imbued, or deprived, by nature (i.e. God).

But God is the transcendent. All things can be traced back to God, or, more precisely, to the infinite. Hence, if there is such a thing as responsibility, it is the sole property of God. Since the world is imperfect, we would have to conceive of God as imperfect as well, in which case, God would also be subject to imperfections, and, so, not responsible for creating them. This is the paradox. We cannot blame even God for being God. Did God create "Himself"? Again, we are confronted with the paradox. So, there is no one and no thing to blame. But this only brings us back to God, which, because "He" is transcendant, is not a thing at all, but is somehow intimately bound up with the no-thing. So, we may blame God, but only on the condition that we understand that which is meant in the Upanishads, where it says "God is and is not."

posted September 18, 2006 04:09 AM            

"About the injunction of the Apostle Paul
that women should keep silent in church?
Don't go by one text only."

- Saint Teresa of Avila

posted September 18, 2006 01:53 PM              

First I want to make this very clear. I am not here on this thread, nor did I start this thread, with the intention of converting anyone else to my way of thinking. Conversion or change in another person is God's business. Not mine or anyone elses. The conversion or change in a human being will only take place from within that person due to his/her being open to the Grace of God that is freely and abundantly poured down onto humankind constantly and eternally. Conversion will come about due to God inwardly talking to the spirit of humankind and the response of lack of response from the person themself to that inward dialouge. We converse with God Spirit to spirit.

For this reason it does not concern me at all that you choose to believe that humankind is only a puppet of a God who does not care about what happens to us or the world. You can believe as you choose to believe as can all the rest of us. However you keep stating that you are speaking "the truth." You are not speaking the truth you are speaking your truth. Your truth is not my truth and that applies to all of us. Just because you think it or reason it does not make it THE truth. The same applies to me and everyone else. We are all speaking truth as we see it. For that reason I personally am reluctant to tell anyone else that they are wrong, even when I may think they are. I realize that I may feel they are wrong due to comparing their truth with my own but that does not mean that they are wrong. There is far too much about God that we can never comprehend in our mortal condition to be able to say that we are totally right and others are totally wrong. Or to tell anyone who does not think or reason as we do they are ignorant.

I sense, and I could be wrong, that you see God as being detached from his creation. That would, in my mind, rule out the oneness of all creation. My question to you is why do you believe that it is God who is responsible for the evils of this world and the evils that humankind does and that you do not ever mention the possiblity that it is the evil of this world, a being who works constantly in opposition to God's will whom some call Satan? Not that I believe that such a being as Satan exists but I do believe from what I have seen in reality that evil does exist. Which poses another question. How could a good and loving God create evil? God didn't create evil as God has no evil in himself. Therefore God only created Good. What God did was give to humankind free will. As the story of Satan goes, and it is only a theory of how evil came to be, is that God also gave to the angels free will. The being Satan choose to follow his own path as he wanted to be God instead of just the light bearer before God.

Logic and reason should tell you that the world is full of paradoxes. There can be no good without evil. There can be no happiness without sadness etc. To deny those paradoxes is to deny reality. To deny the paradoxes within the souls and minds of humankind is denying the reality that they exist. Perhaps that is why there are contradictions in not only the letters of Paul to the churches but throughout Scripture in general. They come from the paradoxes within humankind. What we call inner conflicts. Paul admitted to his imperfections and inner conflicts when he stated, " It is not what I wish to do that I do, but what I do not wish to do that I do, wretched man that I am!" Paul summed up the human condition in just those words.

I prefer to think that when Paul stated what he did about women being subject to their husbands ( or men ) Paul had a momentary lapse of reason. But actually he was speaking from the culture of his time when women were seen as less than men. Don't forget that Paul was a Jewish rabbi himself before his conversion to Christianity. Paul was there when the crowd stoned Stephen, the first Christian martyr, to death and he assisted in the death of Stephen. Paul was before his conversion a persecutor of Christians. Yet God chose this imperfect man to become one of his greatest apostles. In fact, if you go through the history of Christianity and the history of the Jewish faith and the history of the world you will find that God always chose the most imperfect of men to be his prophets, his apostles and to spread his TRUTH. That is reality, HSC. We are all imperfect but it is through God that we are made perfect. Not by anything we do. We cannot make ourselves perfect. We can only work as much as our egos allow us to without intervention on our part with God in becoming more perfect. And it is not about being perfect anyway. We will never be perfect in this lifetime and neither will the world for that reason. This is not it. All that is in this world and the world itself is tangent. It is all passing away. It is all constantly evolving. We know this for a fact. Those who study the universe have stated that the universe is constantly changing and evolving. Those who study this world and other planets have stated that the earth is still forming, still evolving. Well, so are we. What we may deem intelligence now will be seen in thousands of years from now to be ignorance just as we look back at our early ancestors and see their ignorance in comparison to ours. We are still evolving. That is a known reality. So to even pretend or think that we know all there is to know about God is really presumptous and arrogant on our part.

If you are open to reality with your reason and logic you would easily see that for all the bad things that WE cause in this world and in our lives God is constantly working to bring good out of it. And unfortunately all God has to work through is imperfect human beings. We see how he does that in tradegies like Katrina and other natural disasters where other human beings rise to the occasion and help those in need. That is how God chooses to bring about good out of evils or bad things that happen. Why he chooses to use us imperfect human beings is something we cannot know. As Paul said, even God's foolishness ( and he wasn't implying there is foolish in God just using a metaphor ) is wiser than the wisdom of humankind. We cannot possibly know why God works as he does. He is too vast and uncomprehensible to our mortal minds. We are limited.

However, I know there are times in our lives and our world when God does directly intervene. I don't know about you or others, but in my life I have seen miracles where I knew that God did intervene. I would not be alive today if not for a miracle. There are many people who can say the same thing. At the age of 3 I was trapped inside a burning house, hiding in a corner between the wall and the dresser. If not for the fact that my mom who lay unconscious outside, badly burned, did not wake up for a moment and notice that in the pandemonium one of her children was not there and screamed to the firemen that I was missing, I would not be here. After that one moment of consciousness my mom went into a coma for nearly two years. That she even woke from that coma to raise us was another miracle. Did God cause the fire? No, my dad was getting ready for work and left a pot of coffee on the stove which boiled over and subsequently caused the gas stove to explode. It just happened. No blame there on God's part or my dad's part. Just an accident.

It is only us who has to assign blame. Not God. We either blame others, God or Satan for what happens in our lives and our world. It is much easier for humankind to scapegoat than to admit their own responsibility.

But ultimately how much you come to know God in this lifetime and how you see God, as we all have our own image of who and what God is, is between you and God to work out together.

My truth is my truth. Your truth is your truth. And that applies to all of us. But somewhere between my truth and yours and the truth of others lies some of the real truth. But God is the only Absolute Truth. And we can strive for that but we will never know that in our lifetime. Not with our limited abilities and imperfectness. However, Fr. Richard Rhor, spoke about the "Spirituality of Imperfection." Trust me it won't taint you to at least read what he has to say about that though he is a Franciscan priest. Believe it or not, HSC, you are wrong about organized religion being completely dogmatic. Not true at all. Believe it or not religions do know some truths. I don't like it when people form judgments based on ignorance of the facts either and to judge all organized religions as only being "dogmatic" and dictatorial is one of those judgments based on ignorance of the facts. Actually what religions teach and how they worship are only tools anyway. They are not the end. Only the means, like anything else.

Because religions and churches are made up of imperfect people there will be evil along with the good. Same as in the rest of the world. It is narrow minded and cynical to blame the whole religion or church for what some do. But then again, we humans have to blame something. Truth is that bad things do happen and they happen to good people too.

posted September 18, 2006 02:59 PM            

quote:

---

Since everything happens for a reason
(which I assume you are agreeing with, AG,
since you do not dispute this point,
but only the conclusion I draw from it)
and every reason is also a thing,
we must look for the first cause of things
in the transcendant, in God.

---

I do agree that things likely happen for a reason. Parts of our lives would seem very coincidental otherwise. Regarding looking to the transcendant I agree as well. Whether or not it's the Christian God I can't say with certainty.

quote:

---

Are you calling Lia a fool?

---

Is that really what you got from that verse? That verse is in relation to my response after a couple days thinking about your latest work of genius where you chose to be so insulting. You'll notice that I decided not to be personally offended, but decided instead to point out that you were generally insulting to anyone that would read and disagree with you.

quote:

---

I agree, but, what I want, and what is possible within reason are two different things. My highest priority is not to be heard by as many people as possible. If that were the case, I would tell you only what you wanted to hear. My highest priority is to speak the truth.

---

Speaking the truth would be admitting that while you believe everything is directly dictated by God, you don't know for certain whether or not it's true. That would not only be true, but humble as well.

You've not been able to prove anything in regards to this debate that adequately sates the people that disagree with you. It's absolutely true that some people won't listen no matter how much sense you make. However, when you KNOW something it's quite easy to explain away any argument to the contrary. Then it just becomes a matter of pride whether or not the person in error gives up. I don't think your arguments have been compelling. I don't say that to put you down. I say that, because your arguments don't necessarily lead to the point you're trying to prove. Instead, they offer a vague inference of the possibility that God is the ultimate hands-on micro-manager of every detail of what happens on earth.

quote:

---

In any case, I am not being insulting.
A doctor is not insulting you, when he says "You have cancer".
Nor is a philosopher insulting you when he says, "You have ignorance".
I realize, it is not something a person desires to hear,
but it is the first step to recovery.

---

You were being insulting. You said for example, "The belief in individual autonomy
is the result of man's inability to view components as part of the whole." I know this to be untrue with regard to me. It is, in fact, one of the things I'm gifted at. I have no way to illustrate this better than showing you my IQ test results, which can be found here: http://www.freewebs.com/acousticgod/personalityiqreports.htm You actually continued with your insistence on your readership's inability to see the larger picture, so I guess this was a major theme of your insults.

You weren't simply stating the facts, nor the obvious. You were suggesting that somehow your view is larger, and therefore better. It makes it ironic for you to have spoken about ego, and giving up your self for the sake of the Kingdom. What pride are you operating under that you'd feel compelled to be insulting in order to boost your own feelings about your intellect?

quote:

---

I assume you are referring to Jesus,
who was rejected by nearly everyone,
and left to die upon a cross?

---

How many people on how many continents follow Jesus?

quote:

---

I dont understand your logic here.
I think an intellectual would put his/her feelings aside, and listen to my reasoning.
He/She would not need me to "grace" his/her ego, in order to consent to listen to reason.

---

Simpletons will go for anything that sounds right in the moment. Intellectuals will dissect everything you say for validity.

Your reasoning hasn't been sufficient. Your post on "'FREE WILL' And The Emperor's New Age Clothes" didn't provide reasoning, at least not where the debate over Free Will and Predestination are concerned. (Are we even arguing predestination any more, or are we onto Determinism?) Instead of arguing a point, you insist that everyone must not have enough perspective to see things as you do. Any intellectual would wonder why you've veered so far off course that instead of bringing substance you instead resort to insults. You've tried to reason that they're not insults, but rather casual observances. These observations aren't well-founded or based on compelling evidence, though, and you'd have as difficult a time trying to prove these things as you are in your efforts to prove Predestination.

quote:

---

It would. Which is why I do not flatter people, for the confidence of fools is won through flattery.

---

The confidence of fools can be won many ways. Look at politics.

However, the overarching point is that it's impossible to win the confidence of people of intellect through insult. The foolish may agree with that tack, but the rest won't.

quote:

---

And yet, isnt that what you've been debating? I do not think you are wrong to do so. One must understand the nature of foolishness, before one can understand the nature of wisdom.

---

quote:

---

"Because strait is the gate,
and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
- Matt 7:14

---

I did honestly search multiple times for that verse without finding it. I guess we all need a little humility sometimes.

quote:

---

I am not dismissing the argument that determinism would result in social chaos.
I do not believe that it would, but, to prove or disprove, or even to dismiss this concern, is not my business.

---

If it's not your business, then why the call to cast aside that argument without even tackling it? It would make more sense to have skipped it altogether if you wished not to speak on it again.

quote:

---

What I disagee with is the notion that, the argument that something is inexpeditious is a valid reason to declare it untrue.

---

I don't think I've called your views on predestination untrue. I've simply stated that I believe that the evidence shows something different than your conclusion.

It's really ironic for you to have made the above comment in light of the number of times you've advocated logic and intellect. You've sought to make people out as illogical as well as unintellectual for disagreeing with you, and now you're asking that people consider an argument, your argument, that is 'inexpeditious.'

quote:

---

I did not think to disprove this, because I figured that, simply to state the assertion clearly, would make its ridiculousness self-evident.

---

Hardly, obviously.

quote:

---

First things first. My first point is that man is not the cause.
Man is a finite entity, and therefore,
cannot be the transcendant reason for his own nature.

---

This is debatable, not fact. How often have people testified to a change of mind creating a change of circumstance?

quote:

---

If the principle I stated is valid (which you have not yet considered)
then, it certainly proves my point,
that nothing finite can be the penultimate reason for itself.

---

I consider everything faster than most. The principle helps with ideas of Determinism. It does not at all account for predestination. It doesn't specify the unknowns as being God's domain, nor does it negate the processes of the human brain as being controlled from within the human. As such it's difficult for you to use that as a catch-all for the basis of your train of thought.

quote:

---

that nothing finite can be the penultimate reason for itself.

---

That's not the debate. The debate is whether or not we have Free Will.
___________________________________________________________

posted September 18, 2006 03:34 PM            

I feel confused too now. We began with God is one with his creation and is transcendent as well. And the other perspective that eveything is One and is authored. Looks like we are now back to square one. It happens when the small infinity tries to comprehend the larger infinity.

My viewpoint is that God is not just mathematics, but something much beyond.

My ex was a singer, my new girlfried is a singer. I fear I may end up with divorce again if I marry. Is that logical? Relationships are not mathematical.

Karma is not mathematical either. With intentions we can overcome all odds.

God indeed is the first cause of all things. There seems no doubt in my mind about this. But we were part of that first cause too. Is there a supreme being in heaven that transcend the first cause. Perhaps there is.

To add to what Lia said, a man must see himself in the eyes of others. Every soul is a reflection of him.

Its good to go within as well to find the truer you. For you are you alone. A unique masterpiece created by God. There are problems in the world, we need to find the solution.

This world we live in is abviously flawed.
Some say its crap. Everything is illusive in here including happiness. Here, every man goes thru the cycle of being a fool to a wise man and then back to being a fool. Wud I rather break the cycle of Karma by wishing not to be a man? Think carefully? What is better ? To be the sugar or taste the sugar? "Ye are Gods" said Jesus. But don't we know it already? Doesn't having a body means to be an object and worship God and taste the sweetness of everythings thats God.

God is all powerful indeed, but He / She does have limit. How can he feed the entire universe at the same time? Is it possible to make everyone happy all the time? Same with God. Therefore God does everything with a reason for a season.

If I must wish for one thing I will certainly wish to be a man many times.
For God is awareness also and whoever is aware is God. And God is non awareness also. For when we are not aware, God is aware.

Cheers.