post natal depression.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That doesn't make it inevitable.

You are correct if you include infants and children who die before an age of "accountability." However, if I follow you correctly, it may mean that someone may come along that Jesus would not have had to die for.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Eh? How is man's sinning inevitable?

I just explained it.

It is possible for him to choose evil, which is to say, the probability that he sins at each opportunity to do so is greater than 0. (If the probability were not greater than 0, then sinning would be impossible, to which Adam is a counterexample.)
He has an infinite number of opportunities to sin.
Therefore, he must eventually sin.

This is a very elementary deduction.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I just explained it.

It is possible for him to choose evil, which is to say, the probability that he sins at each opportunity to do so is greater than 0. (If the probability were not greater than 0, then sinning would be impossible, to which Adam is a counterexample.)
He has an infinite number of opportunities to sin.
Therefore, he must eventually sin.

This is a very elementary deduction.

Except that laws of probability do not apply to matters of choice. He can very well choose not to sin for every single opportunity. Laws of probability, by definition, apply to random events - matters of choice are, by definition, not random.

Originally posted by kirksey957
You are correct if you include infants and children who die before an age of "accountability." However, if I follow you correctly, it may mean that someone may come along that Jesus would not have had to die for.

Is that so surprising?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
matters of choice are, by definition, not random.

Are you admitting that it is deterministic whether man sins?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Except that laws of probability do not apply to matters of choice.

Of all the retarded things you post here, I think this one takes the cake.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Is that so surprising?

Absolutely! Maybe I haven't read all of your posts over time, but I surely thought you would subscribe that we all have or will sin.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Are you admitting that it is deterministic whether man sins?

In the Humean view, no. In the Aristotelian/Thomistic view, yes.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Of all the retarded things you post here, I think this one takes the cake.

Is that what passes for a refutation in whatever faculty you got your degree from?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In the Humean view, no. In the Aristotelian/Thomistic view, yes.

Which view are you adopting when you challenge the validity of my deduction?

Originally posted by kirksey957
Absolutely! Maybe I haven't read all of your posts over time, but I surely thought you would subscribe that we all have or will sin.

Very probably, all human adults with reasonable intelligence have sinned or will sin. I don't believe it's inevitable though.

But, even if a person doesn't personally commit sin, Christ's sacrifice would still have been necessary because original sin still prevents him from enjoying the Beatific Vision.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Is that what passes for a refutation in whatever faculty you got your degree from?

No. There, more sound and substantial refutations were called for, as positions to be refuted regularly had a modicum of merit.

The idea that probability does not apply to matters of choice is simply laughable and has no merit at all.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Which view are you adopting when you challenge the validity of my deduction?

When it comes to causation, the Aristotelian-Thomistic view.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
When it comes to causation, the Aristotelian-Thomistic view.

Which view are you adopting when you challenge the validity of my deduction?