Originally posted by ChurlantGood. I consider my point made and hopefully it’s taken. I’ll desist from distracting you any longer. 😉
It's not that I don't like it, I'm just not sure I agree, or maybs I just don't understand. It doesn't seem reasonable to conclude that the underlying limitations of existence are supernatural in origin - regardless of whether a God/god can be credited or not.
I agree with the concept, but don't believe it moves beyond mere conceptualization at this point.
-JC
Originally posted by ChurlantActually, if God is as powerful as most theists and deists agree He is, then your parents are not needed for you to come into existence.
Are you actually claiming that God goes around personally overseeing every particular spermatazoon and every particular ovum as they combine, along with genetic variation within that union? Kind of depressing if you consider genetic defects part of God's work.
Nonsense, all of it.
God can have all the power He likes, without my parents, I'm not here. ...[text shortened]... same event and call it life.
God has no choice in the matter. Not much of an artist.
-JC
While you control your external reactions to an experience, your internal control is quite limited (even over the conscious part of your mind). You cannot choose whether you feel anger or joy at a particular event - the best you can do is repress it by choosing not to acknowledge it.
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow then are you supposed to refuse to give in to temptation? You cannot have it both ways.
Actually, if God is as powerful as most theists and deists agree He is, then your parents are not needed for you to come into existence.
While you control your external reactions to an experience, your internal control is quite limited (even over the conscious part of your mind). You cannot choose whether you feel anger or joy at a particular event - the best you can do is repress it by choosing not to acknowledge it.
Originally posted by StarrmanFeeling that one is tempted and acting on the basis of that temptation are two different things. You have little choice about the former; the latter is entirely under your control.
How then are you supposed to refuse to give in to temptation? You cannot have it both ways.
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow do you reconcile the notion that you must resist the desire which has been biologically placed in you by god, with the supposed gift of free will that he claims to have given you?
Feeling that one is tempted and acting on the basis of that temptation are two different things. You have little choice about the former; the latter is entirely under your control.
Originally posted by StarrmanThat wasn't meant to be anything but a serious answer. The Christian life is one of thought, and demands that our minds be filled with truth (Bible doctrine, not merely facts).
If you're going to be a smart alec, then clear off. The question was a serious one directed at LH
Originally posted by StarrmanI think one should start by defining the function of the appetites/desires placed within us.
How do you reconcile the notion that you must resist the desire which has been biologically placed in you by god, with the supposed gift of free will that he claims to have given you?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOkay, apologies, but that still doesn't really say anything about the subject.
That wasn't meant to be anything but a serious answer. The Christian life is one of thought, and demands that our minds be filled with truth (Bible doctrine, not merely facts).
Originally posted by StarrmanIf you believe that then, as Hal pointed out, free will is an illusion. Do you sincerely believe that you have absolutely no control over what you do? That the idea of "you" (to contol) is itself illusory?
You'll have to clarify for me then how they are put there, since it seems to me that desires and emotions are bio-chemical in origin.
Originally posted by lucifershammerSentience allows control over one's own thoughts. There is a difference between freedom of action and freedom of opportunity. While you can say that the 'me' that I am is likely to act in such ways as to get me into certain situations and my natural reaction to them is predetermined by my biology, I don't believe you can say that I do not have control of my reasoning when I am aware of it and am acting as such.
If you believe that then, as Hal pointed out, free will is an illusion. Do you sincerely believe that you have absolutely no control over what you do? That the idea of "you" (to contol) is itself illusory?