rolling the dice

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I suspect that he could change the outcome, yes, but may choose not to for certain reasons, for example he allowed the Canaanites to rebel until their sin had reached a fullness, he allowed Job to be tempted in order to test his integrity, allowed the Christ to suffer because it accomplished a purpose. No doubt God could have changed the outcome but chose not to for various reasons.

Maybe we are living in one of the futures that he is going to change? eg maybe he will stop the Canaanites from rebelling.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
god has a bad track record with creation. three of his first key creations with freewill (adam, eve and satan) went bad and between them have caused centuries of pain and mayhem. apparently 1/3 of angels also went bad.

so from this we can figure out that when god creates a creature with free will he is effectively rolling the dice. he has no idea if ...[text shortened]... one day and stay, god is perfect though (they argue) but wasnt satan also described as perfect?

"god has a bad track record with creation. three of his first key creations with freewill (adam, eve and satan)"

stellspalfie, there were three creations: Angelic in Eternity (past), one of which was Lucifer (or Satan); the first
two Human Beings (within the Universe); the Pyramidal Food Chain to support itself and human life (on Earth).

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"god has a bad track record with creation. three of his first key creations with freewill (adam, eve and satan)"

stellspalfie, there were three creations: Angelic in Eternity (past), one of which was Lucifer (or Satan); the first
two Human Beings (within the Universe); the Pyramidal Food Chain to support itself and human life (on Earth).

errm, youve lost me. you seem to be just quoting me and then rewording my quote..with the addition of irrelevant stuff about food chains.

Originally posted by googlefudge
This statement is incompatible with the faith based belief you claimed earlier.



OK. Show me the empirical evidence that Sibelius's Finlandia Suite is a beautiful
piece of music.

hardly, one can make an examination of the physical universe and draw inferences from it.

I am not too keen on Sibelius to be honest, who says its beautiful?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Maybe we are living in one of the futures that he is going to change? eg maybe he will stop the Canaanites from rebelling.

one of the futures, what do you mean?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"god has a bad track record with creation. three of his first key creations with freewill (adam, eve and satan)"

stellspalfie, there were three creations: Angelic in Eternity (past), one of which was Lucifer (or Satan); the first
two Human Beings (within the Universe); the Pyramidal Food Chain to support itself and human life (on Earth).

Now this is one of the many problems I have with your beliefs...


This world/universe, and all the things in it, were not made for our
benefit.
The purpose of the worlds ecosystem is not to support us.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
one of the futures, what do you mean?

Maybe we are in a future that God is foreseeing and he will change it.

Or are you saying there is actually only one actual future and what God sees and can change are just possible futures? If so, then your original language was inexact (I am not saying you are wrong, just saying clarification is needed).

So when you say God can foresee the future and can change it, are you saying he knows all possible futures, and if so, does he know which one of them will come about? In other words, does he know what he is going to do, which will change the future into what it will really be. ie does he know his own future?

Is God the only entity that can affect the future? ie, if he sees something is going to happen, and takes counter measures, can something else affect the universe in such a way that the original event does not actually happen? Or is God the only influence on the universe?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
errm, youve lost me. you seem to be just quoting me and then rewording my quote..with the addition of irrelevant stuff about food chains.

.... taking your initial post in steps; confusion's worse than ignorance.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
.... taking your initial post in steps; confusion's worse than ignorance.

okay, sorry to interrupt. on with the step taking.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not too keen on Sibelius to be honest, who says its beautiful?

Well I do.

My point being that whether or not Finlandia is a beautiful piece of music is
not a subject one can provide evidence for.
It's subjective, and not objective. It can't be empirically tested or measured.

Demonstrating that there are discussions that can't be based on empirical evidence.

Given that.

I contend that whether or not god has the RIGHT to rule, is a moral and ethical
question that cannot be discussed empirically.


In the same way that I can't go and find empirical evidence of a RIGHT to life
liberty and happiness. As those are abstract concepts
I can't find evidence for or against god having a RIGHT to rule all of creation.

Originally posted by googlefudge
My point being that whether or not Finlandia is a beautiful piece of music is
not a subject one can provide evidence for.
It's subjective, and not objective. It can't be empirically tested or measured.

I disagree.
First of all, Finlandia is not a beautiful piece of music independent of a person with an opinion. In other words, it is not a property of the music but of the listeners appreciation for that music. (hence the word subjective).
But this does not in any way mean that we cannot investigate why a specific person finds a specific piece of music beautiful, or even investigate why many people find particular pieces of music beautiful. There is nothing stopping us from empirically testing or measuring it other than the monetary expense or your lack of willingness to participate in the study.
I think your error is to not realise what 'subjective' and 'objective' actually imply. You recognize that it is subjective yet still attribute the beauty as a property of the music then fail to find the property to be studied.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree.
First of all, Finlandia is not a beautiful piece of music independent of a person with an opinion. In other words, it is not a property of the music but of the listeners appreciation for that music. (hence the word subjective).
But this does not in any way mean that we cannot investigate why a specific person finds a specific piece of music ...[text shortened]... ll attribute the beauty as a property of the music then fail to find the property to be studied.

Ok. lets deal with this in stages.

First of all, Finlandia is not a beautiful piece of music independent
of a person with an opinion. In other words, it is not a property of the
music but of the listeners appreciation for that music. (hence the word
subjective).

Yes. I know this. It was in fact kind of my point.

People don't have rights outside of the minds of other intelligent beings.
There is no such thing as a 'right' that you can go out and find.

Thus my example of a piece of music being beautiful or not, an attribute that
you rightly say only exists inside peoples heads, is apt.

But this does not in any way mean that we cannot investigate why a specific
person finds a specific piece of music beautiful, or even investigate why many people
find particular pieces of music beautiful.

Indeed. But as I was attacking the notion of god having a right as an empirically
testable thing, the equivalent here is talking about music as having beauty as an
inherent empirical property of the music itself.

I think your error is to not realise what 'subjective' and 'objective' actually imply.
You recognize that it is subjective yet still attribute the beauty as a property of the
music then fail to find the property to be studied.

No, I know what subjective and objective mean.
What I am trying to point out is that like beauty in music, rights accorded to other beings
are accorded solely based on the views of other intelligent beings and do not have
an objective existence outside of that.


I apologise if that wasn't clear.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I apologise if that wasn't clear.

I guess I misunderstood you. But you did say:

It can't be empirically tested or measured.

Which is clearly not the case. It can be empirically tested and measured. That is what I was objecting to.
A piece of music's inherent beauty cannot be empirically measured or tested simply because it is incoherent, not because it is something that is beyond the domain of science.
So I therefore disagree with your conclusion:

Demonstrating that there are discussions that can't be based on empirical evidence.

There are discussions that are incoherent but I am pretty sure that that is not what you meant by that sentence.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
okay, sorry to interrupt. on with the step taking.

"god has a bad track record with creation. three of his first key creations with freewill (adam, eve and satan)" -stellspalfie

stellspalfie, there were three creations: Angelic in Eternity (past), one of which was Lucifer (or Satan); the first
two Human Beings (within the Universe); the Pyramidal Food Chain to support itself and human life (on Earth).

"so from this we can figure out that when god creates a creature with free will he is effectively rolling the dice. he has no idea if they will come out good or bad." -stellspalfie

Roman Centurions rolled dice (cast lots) for Christ's Garments at the site of His crucifixion; Deity doesn't, because Omniscience knows (and knew in Eternity Past) all the knowable in human history down to its finite detail which includes the motives and contents of the minds of men. God's a gentleman, however, indisposed to interfering with human will. (tbc)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
....... (tbc)

There is a hell then!