Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou believe in an imaginary "system" where the pedophile and the mass murderer can "walk free" as a result of "undeserved mercy" and "an innocent law abiding citizen" can be tortured in agony for eternity for a thoughtcrime. I don't think there is anything "credible" about what you propose.
You choosing to believe that a system of justice (where a pedophile and a mass murderer can walk free and where an innocent law abiding citizen can be framed and receive the death penalty...
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWe talked this through on the other thread. I'm OK with you not agreeing with my arguments.
But you are the one that decides what is morally credible are you not? On what objective basis can you claim that your view of justice is better than mine if you don't believe in a universally correct justice system?
07 Sep 16
Originally posted by FMFAh you said page 12 before.
On page 3 you asked me directly "You would much rather be a robot?" What is the relevance or application of this to me and what does it have to do about what I have said about what I perceive to be the purposes of my life?
The way I see it if you have free will you can choose to suppress the truth and God's purpose for your life. You can choose to believe in evidence or choose to reject evidence. You said "If there were a "divine purpose" then it would be clear to humans." You also said, "It seems an absolutely preposterous way for a supernatural being to handle its own revelation. If there is a "divine purpose" for my life, then it is, for all practical intents and purposes, being kept secret from me."
So I believe if God didn't give us a free will we would not be able to choose to suppress the truth, and we would hence all be believers. But if he made is that way we would all be robots without a free will to choose. So I asked you which do you prefer. Having a free will and hence the ability to suppress the truth or do you prefer to be a robot that is programmed to accept the truth with no free will to choose on your own.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThis is a bit second order, you drop the point about propositional beliefs and try to claim that we choose our own paradigms. What shapes worldview is experience. Experiences can be chosen, but not with complete information, since until one has had the experience one does not know what it is like or if it is paradigm changing. So one does not have complete control over one's own world view.
So no choice that you make has any influence on shaping your world view?
What then does shape your world view? And what is the main thing that impacts belief formation?
Do you not decide if something fits into your worldview or not?
One might decide to change one's worldview in the face of contradictory evidence, but the problem with God is that it's an evidence free concept, there is the Bible and that is about it. So the spur to change one's Weltanshauung is experience, once that spur has driven them to search they may be open to Christian ideas, but they won't have made the decision to change their worldview on the basis of any evidence concerning Christian ideas.
You are assuming that all decisions involve free will. Suppose you are asked if you want tea or coffee. If you have a strong preference for one or the other then you will go for that, free will wasn't involved. If you do not have a strong preference you have a dilemma, but because the question is trivial you won't care particularly and will plump for one or the other. So, free will seems only to apply in important marginal cases. When making a decision what we do is look for a reason to choose one or the other. Depending on how much the decision matters we'll put more or less effort into finding a rational reason to make us prefer one option to the other and if we do not find one then we'll choose on arbitrary grounds, possibly a coin toss. I do not see that there is an exercise of metaphysical free will being demonstrated in this process. I also do not see that there is anything essentially different going when being asked to pick a belief. Either the belief is not challenging or it is. So evidence for God, and I'm skeptical about your evidence base, is too far from the world view of an empirico-materialist to meaningfully engage them outside of a mid-life crisis or somesuch.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI don't have any reason whatsoever to think that finding what you say to be utterly unbelievable is me "suppressing the truth". You have delusions of grandeur. "The truth"? You have offered me no arguments and no evidence at all that the things you have proposed to me are things that can be described as "the truth" or that they are things that actually affect the reality in which I live.
Ah you said page 12 before.
The way I see it if you have free will you can choose to suppress the truth and God's purpose for your life. You can choose to believe in evidence or choose to reject evidence. You said "If there were a "divine purpose" then it would be clear to humans." You also said, "It seems an absolutely preposterous way for a superna ...[text shortened]... er to be a robot that is programmed to accept the truth with no free will to choose on your own.
07 Sep 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWould you say one worldview is more correct than another? Or are they all equal?
This is a bit second order, you drop the point about propositional beliefs and try to claim that we choose our own paradigms. What shapes worldview is experience. Experiences can be chosen, but not with complete information, since until one has had the experience one does not know what it is like or if it is paradigm changing. So one does not have co ...[text shortened]... of an empirico-materialist to meaningfully engage them outside of a mid-life crisis or somesuch.
07 Sep 16
Originally posted by FMFDo you believe in the existence of universal truth? If not, why does it matter that people have different beliefs?
I don't have any reason whatsoever to think that finding what you say to be utterly unbelievable is me "suppressing the truth". You have delusions of grandeur. "The truth"? You have offered me no arguments and no evidence at all that the things you have proposed to me are things that can be described as "the truth" or that they are things that actually affect the reality in which I live.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAs a Christian myself, I have never met one person who has presented any "evidence of Jesus", nor have I met one Christian who is a Christian because of "evidence of Jesus" that has been presented to them.
If believe if not a choice, why do some people find the evidence of Jesus convincing and other people don't?
07 Sep 16
Originally posted by FMFIf everyone were programmed to believe in God, they would have no free will to choose for themselves. I think God created us for the purpose of love. Without free will we wouldn't be able to love God.
Why would it be bad for your God figure if everyone believed in Him?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhy do you keep going on about universal truth without explaining what you think universal truth is? You repeatededly ask people what they believe using terms like "universal truth" but I have asked you several times to explain what YOU believe about anything and you either refuse to or are completely incapable of articulating it.
Do you believe in the existence of universal truth? If not, why does it matter that people have different beliefs?
07 Sep 16
Originally posted by FMFAnd that is your choice is it not? You choose not to believe the revelation of God as described in the Bible. What makes you think that your idea of 'credible' is better than mine if there is no universal truth?
You believe in an imaginary "system" where the pedophile and the mass murderer can "walk free" as a result of "undeserved mercy" and "an innocent law abiding citizen" can be tortured in agony for eternity for a thoughtcrime. I don't think there is anything "credible" about what you propose.