Epicurus 300 BC

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by knightmeister
Thanks and likewise.

[b]Could you explain this further? I fail to see why God could not commit himself to a course of action and follow it through even though at times he may be tempted to depart from it.
I don't quite see how a perfect being like god could be prone to temptation in that way though.

I ...[text shortened]... ent of causing him to alter his game plan. But at no stage would he lose control of the game.[/b]

don't quite see how a perfect being like god could be prone to temptation in that way though.
------shark-----------

He might be "tempted" in the sense that his love and compassion might get the better of him. There is a theory that God is taking a huge risk with his creatures and sometimes might regret the whole thing. Or that he is itching to end the whole thing and bring glory to the universe , but is holding off for our benefit to give us a chance to decide for ourselves. God in this sense is not an impassive watcher but an agonsing Father , desperate for his creatures to know him but determinedly committed to allowing us fre choice in the matter.

This could explain why he stays out of things so much. CS Lewis mused that God's presence and glory was so compelling and so utterly glorious that if he got too close choice would disintegrate somehow. We would have no choice but to believe. This is why God hides according to this theory.

I sensed this with my children when they were very young. I knew that they were so easily influenced by me and what I felt and thought that even just a slight intonation of voice would make them choose one thing over another. My very presence suffocated their free choices (boy how that changed!)

Originally posted by knightmeister
don't quite see how a perfect being like god could be prone to temptation in that way though.
------shark-----------

He might be "tempted" in the sense that his love and compassion might get the better of him. There is a theory that God is taking a huge risk with his creatures and sometimes might regret the whole thing. Or that he is itching to en ...[text shortened]... thing over another. My very presence suffocated their free choices (boy how that changed!)

Originally posted by knightmeister

He might be "tempted" in the sense that his love and compassion might get the better of him. There is a theory that God is taking a huge risk with his creatures and sometimes might regret the whole thing. Or that he is itching to end the whole thing and bring glory to the universe , but is holding off for our benefit to give us a chance to decide for ourselves. God in this sense is not an impassive watcher but an agonsing Father , desperate for his creatures to know him but determinedly committed to allowing us fre choice in the matter.
That's interesting because for me, this is fundamentally counter intuitive. My disquiet has two strands. The first is that this seems to anthropomorphise god to an extent which is at odds with his specification as a bona fide triple O being, beyond time, space and causality. This portrayal is more wizard of oz than supreme being. I'll get to the second strand in a moment.

This could explain why he stays out of things so much. CS Lewis mused that God's presence and glory was so compelling and so utterly glorious that if he got too close choice would disintegrate somehow. We would have no choice but to believe. This is why God hides according to this theory.
This is where the second strand comes in. The central idea is that having the freedom to make the correct decision has some intrinsic value. I flatly deny that it does.

I would absolutely welcome the completely compelling presence of god. I do value the ability to make correct decisions given the evidence. But I don't see any value in having the freedom to make a decision that is contrary to the evidence. You could reply that the evidence for god is all around. That's true, if you look at it through the right prism. But I can't choose my prism. Through mine, the evidence is lacking. I don't see any value in having the freedom to choose on the basis of inconclusive or ambiguous data.

If we reflect on how belief works, we can see that this view makes sense. Belief isn't really voluntary. Try as I might, I can't really choose to believe that there is a donkey in my fridge, because the evidence compels me otherwise. It is no good to say that I am somehow morally worthy if I believe X. That would imply that I ought to believe X. But 'ought' implies 'can'. I can no more believe that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour than I can believe there is a donkey in my fridge. The evidence, from my perspective, doesn't support the belief. And given my perspective, I can't help that.

I think this is the main reason why making a virtue of having a choice to believe is so implausible for me.

You might well have made wise and restrained choices when bringing up your children. I'd bet on it actually. For me, this analogy doesn't extend to god without an untenable amount of anthropomorphism.

I hope that all makes sense.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by knightmeister

[b]He might be "tempted" in the sense that his love and compassion might get the better of him. There is a theory that God is taking a huge risk with his creatures and sometimes might regret the whole thing. Or that he is itching to end the whole thing and bring glory to the universe , but is holding off for ou hout an untenable amount of anthropomorphism.

I hope that all makes sense.

If we reflect on how belief works, we can see that this view makes sense. Belief isn't really voluntary. Try as I might, I can't really choose to believe that there is a donkey in my fridge, because the evidence compels me otherwise.

-----lshark---------------


I agree belief isn't voluntary but choices are and choices lead to beliefs being formed. Let's say that there really was a donkey in your fridge (LOL) and I knew this. I might invite you to look in the fridge or open the door. However, the choice is yours and you don't have to look. Once you look there's a chance you might see and believe the donkey is there , but it would still be a choice of yours to open the door/ not open the door

For you , Christ seems like the donkey in the fridge. But for me he seems like a block of cheese (ie more plausible). The choice would be for you to take a risk and entertain the idea that it's not the donkey you thought it was , but something a bit more plausible.

So although we cannot choose our beliefs there are all sorts of ways that we can stop ourselves being exposed to new ideas or experiences etc. It is this that creates the choice. In the Christian sense God's promise is "seek and you will find " and "knock and the door will be opened to you " (not fridge doors I might add!) . However , in the presence of God such choice becomes impossible because the door is already wide open , we MUST believe. And if we are compelled to because of the overwhelming nature of God , then what's the point in bothering with creating a free will scenario for us and going to all the trouble of making this universe free?

Right now for example you are free to choose , but if God invaded this universe you would not be free to choose. From your perspective the choice is clear right now , you can only believe what you feel authentically you can believe. But we all get a chance at some point when the knock at the door comes and God invites us to consider the donkey that at one time seemed so implausible.

Anyway , before this starts to sound cheesy and too evangelical I'm off to stock up my fridge from the local garage. Nice talking to you.....

BTW- any chance you could teach me how to control these bold types etc?

Originally posted by knightmeister
BTW- any chance you could teach me how to control these bold types etc?

Enter another bold close-off at the end of your text. ..

Originally posted by knightmeister
If we reflect on how belief works, we can see that this view makes sense. Belief isn't really voluntary. Try as I might, I can't really choose to believe that there is a donkey in my fridge, because the evidence compels me otherwise.

-----lshark---------------


I agree belief isn't voluntary but choices are and choices lead to beliefs being for ...[text shortened]... ou.....

BTW- any chance you could teach me how to control these bold types etc?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I agree belief isn't voluntary but choices are and choices lead to beliefs being formed. Let's say that there really was a donkey in your fridge (LOL) and I knew this. I might invite you to look in the fridge or open the door. However, the choice is yours and you don't have to look. Once you look there's a chance you might see and believe the donkey is there , but it would still be a choice of yours to open the door/ not open the door
But I'd just choose to open the door and have a look. That's the thing. From my perspective, I did open the door. But I was told that the reason I couldn't see the donkey was that I didn't have enough faith.

For you , Christ seems like the donkey in the fridge. But for me he seems like a block of cheese (ie more plausible). The choice would be for you to take a risk and entertain the idea that it's not the donkey you thought it was , but something a bit more plausible.
I can see the block of cheese. I can touch, smell and taste it. It behaves predictably. That's what its plausibility consists in. But some people want to tell me that there is some deep ineffable mystery to Christ that I can only appreciate if I look at him in the right way. That isn't like cheese at all.

So for me it isn't a question of taking a risk to entertain the idea that Christ is plausible. I've given the idea plenty of room in my head. It is just that no amount of wining and dining the idea reveals it to be remotely plausible. I genuinely don't think I can help that, it just isn't plausible.

It is more like a scenario where you say you know there is a donkey in a particular fridge. But when asked how you know, you can't give a coherent account of how you know, you admit that you haven't physically looked in this fridge, and neither has anybody else. But you have a strong feeling or intuition or faith that it is true anyway.

So although we cannot choose our beliefs there are all sorts of ways that we can stop ourselves being exposed to new ideas or experiences etc. It is this that creates the choice. In the Christian sense God's promise is "seek and you will find " and "knock and the door will be opened to you "
But I have looked very hard. I've been to church, to prayer meetings, I've meditated and so on. Nothing.

However , in the presence of God such choice becomes impossible because the door is already wide open , we MUST believe. And if we are compelled to because of the overwhelming nature of God , then what's the point in bothering with creating a free will scenario for us and going to all the trouble of making this universe free?
Well that's the nub of it isn't it? I'd welcome the presence of god so I could stop getting it so wrong. I try my best, but in all conscience I cannot believe something that seems absurd. So, you tell me, what's the point in bothering with creating a free will scenario for us and going to all the trouble of making this universe free? I can't see one, and nobody has yet provided a plausible reason, as far as I'm aware. Give me compulsion to get it right, I'll sign up for that.

Right now for example you are free to choose , but if God invaded this universe you would not be free to choose. From your perspective the choice is clear right now , you can only believe what you feel authentically you can believe. But we all get a chance at some point when the knock at the door comes and God invites us to consider the donkey that at one time seemed so implausible.
I can see that from your perspective, that's a reasonable belief. But I can honestly say from mine, that not only has it been revealed as unfalsifiable by my direct experience, it is also question begging. I don't see the value of free choice in this context.

Anyway , before this starts to sound cheesy and too evangelical I'm off to stock up my fridge from the local garage. Nice talking to you.....
You ran out of donkeys eh? Nice talking to you too, thanks again for taking the time.

On the bold text, just make sure that the text you want in bold is enclosed with b in square brackets followed by /b also in brackets. When we cut and paste to quote it is easy to pick up an extra b without noticing, in which case the whole post comes out bold.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]I agree belief isn't voluntary but choices are and choices lead to beliefs being formed. Let's say that there really was a donkey in your fridge (LOL) and I knew this. I might invite you to look in the fridge or open the door. However, the choice is yours and you don't have to look. Once you look there's a ch ithout noticing, in which case the whole post comes out bold.

But I'd just choose to open the door and have a look. That's the thing. From my perspective, I did open the door. But I was told that the reason I couldn't see the donkey was that I didn't have enough faith.------lshark

This is an interesting statement for a Christian to hear. I would like to know more , but it might sidetrak us for a while.....

I genuinely don't think I can help that, it just isn't plausible.------lordshark

I wouldn't dispute this. Nevertheless , our world views are always based on our own selected perceptions and therefore our choices. For example , we make a decision in our minds how we will decide what is plausible and what isn't. There's a value judgement involved.

Materialistic scientific thinking for example posits that only something that can be measured in a specfic way counts as "evidence" or proof - but Einstein himself pointed out that not all that can be "counted" is of worth and many things of worth cannot be counted (or something like that)

So because no Christian can offer a clear rational explanation for people crushed in earthquakes etc - doesn't mean that there is no reason or explanation to the problem it just might not be the one we expect or want. One thing I thought about the other day is what we might feel once we are in heaven and whether we would still seek an explanation. Gazing our eyes upon the redeemed eternal souls who had been crushed horribly we might feel differently. Their redemption and glory would be an "answer" in itself.

True we might still ask "why was that necessary God?" but we wouldn't be that bothered about the explanation because the glory all around us would be enough because all would be well. Questions like "why can't there be more people here with us rather than in hell? " would seem much more piercing and troublesome in such a context.

BTW - the bolds don't work - I can't seem to isolate them and I've checked for stray b's

Originally posted by knightmeister
But I'd just choose to open the door and have a look. That's the thing. From my perspective, I did open the door. But I was told that the reason I couldn't see the donkey was that I didn't have enough faith.------lshark

This is an interesting statement for a Christian to hear. I would like to know more , but it might sidetrak us for a while.....
...[text shortened]... n't work - I can't seem to isolate them and I've checked for stray b's

Originally posted by knightmeister

This is an interesting statement for a Christian to hear. I would like to know more , but it might sidetrak us for a while.....
Another thread sometime maybe...

I wouldn't dispute this. Nevertheless , our world views are always based on our own selected perceptions and therefore our choices. For example , we make a decision in our minds how we will decide what is plausible and what isn't. There's a value judgement involved.
This is what used to be called a 'bootstrapping' problem though. In other words, we all have to come up with a world view. An integral part of this world view is a procedure for judging what is plausible. But in order to decide what is the best procedure for doing that, at some stage we must judge between different procedures. Which faces us with a 'Catch 22' scenario of having to judge which procedure for determining plausibility is the most plausible 🙂

So how do most of us actually solve this? I think we use our predispositions and our upbringing to give us a start, a first approximation if you will. We then refine this first approximation in the light of experience and enhanced cognitive capability as we mature.

This is compatible with you and me being equally sincere and able yet ending up with very different notions of plausibility. So I don't think either of us necessarily made any bad choices along our journey to our very different notions of plausibility. Logically, I think you must disagree here though.

Materialistic scientific thinking for example posits that only something that can be measured in a specfic way counts as "evidence" or proof - but Einstein himself pointed out that not all that can be "counted" is of worth and many things of worth cannot be counted (or something like that)
On most message boards of this type you will see endlessly recycled battles where the victims on the casualty list are all made of straw. We know how they go don't we? The believers rip the ranks of literal-minded materialist reductionists to shreds with their ratatat tat talk of romantic love and symphonies. The non believers return fire with the artillery of reason and a brigade of woolly minded magical thinkers perishes....

But we both know things are a bit more complicated than that, don't we?

So because no Christian can offer a clear rational explanation for people crushed in earthquakes etc - doesn't mean that there is no reason or explanation to the problem it just might not be the one we expect or want.
I agree. Not only might it not be the one we expect or want, it might not be one we have the capacity to even make sense of, let alone expect or want.

One thing I thought about the other day is what we might feel once we are in heaven and whether we would still seek an explanation. Gazing our eyes upon the redeemed eternal souls who had been crushed horribly we might feel differently. Their redemption and glory would be an "answer" in itself.
Yes that might be the case. Or something like that...

True we might still ask "why was that necessary God?" but we wouldn't be that bothered about the explanation because the glory all around us would be enough because all would be well. Questions like "why can't there be more people here with us rather than in hell? " would seem much more piercing and troublesome in such a context.
Yes, you would be looking down at me being toasted and pitch forked and I'd implore you to put in a good word. I really did try my best to get it right, I'd say, and not believing was my honest judgement. Whereupon god would reveal to you an explanation so perfect that we are not even able to guess its form whilst mortal. 🙂

I think our dialogue has helped me understand how this hangs together for you better.

I think that for you, god's love is a real presence. From that, given the context within which you interpret it, you have what you consider to be the outline of an understanding of why things have to be this way, but freely admit you don't have all the details. We are only human after all 🙂 Correct me if I'm wrong there.

On the bold problem, when I reply and quote, your whole message is enclosed with b and /b in their square brackets in my quoted post section. Not sure why this is the case, sorry.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by knightmeister

[b]This is an interesting statement for a Christian to hear. I would like to know more , but it might sidetrak us for a while.....
Another thread sometime maybe...

I wouldn't dispute this. Nevertheless , our world views are always based on our own selected perceptions and therefore our choices. For e ets in my quoted post section. Not sure why this is the case, sorry.

Yes, you would be looking down at me being toasted and pitch forked and I'd implore you to put in a good word. I really did try my best to get it right, I'd say, and not believing was my honest judgement.
--------------------lshark------------------------

I really don't think that will be the case. If you believe in the path of love , acceptance and compassion then you won't be far from Christ. Aside from any intellectual considerations about belief versus unbelief , Christ is no doubt closer to you than you might realise. The God I have come to understand would appreciate your honesty and forthright questions.

There are no easy answers to many of the questions around suffering , but I feel you have appreciated that in order to create free will there are some possibly "icky" consequences. What we disagree with is how "icky" things reasonably need to be. But at least you are not one of those fellows who thinks that God can create a truely free being capable of disobeying him , but at the same time guarantee no ickiness at all.

EDIT - THERE GO THE BOLDS AGAIN! - as for the /b [b] s .... They just don't exist on my screen.

Originally posted by knightmeister

I really don't think that will be the case. If you believe in the path of love , acceptance and compassion then you won't be far from Christ. Aside from any intellectual considerations about belief versus unbelief , Christ is no doubt closer to you than you might realise. The God I have come to understand would appreciate your honesty and forthright questions.
Well, that is good news.

There are no easy answers to many of the questions around suffering , but I feel you have appreciated that in order to create free will there are some possibly "icky" consequences. What we disagree with is how "icky" things reasonably need to be. But at least you are not one of those fellows who thinks that God can create a truely free being capable of disobeying him , but at the same time guarantee no ickiness at all.
I agree, ickyness is logically compatible with your notion of god.

We might have to do some tests on your bolds. I'll have a think.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes, you would be looking dow n at me being toasted and pitch forked and Id implore you to put in a good word. I really did try my best to get it right, I'd say, and not believing was my honest judgement.
--------------------lshark------------------------

I really don't think that will be the case. If you believe in the path of love , acceptance a ERE GO THE BOLDS AGAIN! - as for the /b [b] s .... They just don't exist on my screen.

[/b]KM, at the very beginning of your post, before anything else, put the bracket-backslash-b-bracket: [ / b ] (without the spaces that I put in here, of course). That will undo any bolds in the post except for the ones you open and close yourself. (As LS noted, thos unwanted bolds seem to get picked up somehow from the post we are replying to.)

If you post, and see that it all comes out bold, just edit the post by putting in the [ / b ] at the very beginning.

EDIT: I just had to go back and edit this post to remove the bolds...

Originally posted by vistesd
KM, at the very beginning of your post, before anything else, put the bracket-backslash-b-bracket: [ / b ] (without the spaces that I put in here, of course). That will undo any bolds in the post except for the ones you open and close yourself. (As LS noted, thos unwanted bolds seem to get picked up somehow from the post we are replying to.)

If you ...[text shortened]... at the very beginning.

EDIT: I just had to go back and edit this post to remove the bolds...[/b]

So does form follow function?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So does form follow function?

LOL!!

Originally posted by vistesd
LOL!!

I knew you'd appreciate that.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I knew you'd appreciate that.

I truly did! Still smilin' (which is a good thing to go to sleep on, which I now will); thanks for that one.