Thordaddy said...
Mills,Why argue with radical autonomists like Fisher and Nulan? Do you not understand that "mapping the human genome" is really just another oppressive tool to limit one's own self-created identity or some do-gooders attempt at "equalizing" the playing field? Such an endeavor to create "inherented oppression" is antithetical to the mindset of the radical autonomist?
Do you think that a radical autonomist (TD, please submit a definition for radical autonomy) that supports abortion and homosexuality really cares about finding cures for deadly diseases? Remember, these scientific fellas are supposed to be believers in Modern Evolutionary Theory (you know, survival and reproduction). In reality, they recognize that MET is for dummies who don't realize that "we" can actually create reality. How else can the "fact" of survival and reproduction (evolutionary theory) produce self-genocide?
Fisher and Nulan are conductors of psychological warfare on our civilization.
P.S. Should we even mention what the results of the "mapping" might do to GSWS or "Dopamine Hegemony?"
48 comments:
DV,
Radical autonomy is nothing more than the assertion of the individual will as "right" and "truthful." But because radical autonomy, by definition, can't be rooted in anything not self-created, the notion of "truth" and "right" is more often than not eschewed and the assertion of naked will is all that is left.
We can see this most clearly in radical homosexuals and abortionists.
DV
You feel for this?
Damn homie, what's happening?
Radical autonomy...
Another term for free will.
Thor would have you believe that your free will is not a divine "right" bestowed upon you by God.
You buying that?
Yeah, Gentle Big Man. I am.
I'm suspicious of the concepts marketed as "Free Will", "Freedom" and "Liberty".
I see them for the Luciferian booby traps they are.
Ultimately, they each involve the rejection of God.
DV
You need to get in your Bible deeper my man.
Free will is a divine right.
When Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, what was she doing but exercising her free will?
And she and her husband suffered the consequences of their decision.
That's the beauty of my religion. It's not forced upon you. It's a free choice. The apostle Paul knew about that as well.
With that freedom, comes responsiblity. The problem is not the freedom, is the unwillingness of people to accept responsibility for their actions.
lil' man,
Free will isn't a "divine right" if it means spewing falsehoods and lies.
Actually, "free will" is a logical necessity in an ordered world created by God. Our ability to restrain our will is the real gift from God.
P.S. I should have added atheists and theists who believe in autonomous gods as those that exhibit notions of radical autonomy. Most liberal "Christians" are "theists" who believe in an autonomous god.
Autonomous god?
What are you talking about?
You know what's funny? You never actually bring your points back to the Bible.
You talk about God, you talk about his will, but you don't talk about his word.
In every Bible based discussion we've had, you've only referenced the Word of God twice, and both times you skewed it.
That's wild.
Let me pose a question.
The Bible says David was a man after God's own heart. Yet, he commited murder and adultery.
So, was he exercising his free will, or wasn't he?
Is it possible that David exercised the free will granted to him by God, committed a sin, and then had to be punished for it?
Seems to be the way God works with everybody, if I'm not mistaken.
It's how he worked with Solomon, how he worked with Paul, how he worked with Peter.
Free will has always been a fact. There have always been rewards and consequences based on our choices. The biggest reward being the FREE WILL choice to accept Jesus Christ and thus receive salvation.
Seems logical to me, but maybe that's my teeny, tiny brain failing to comprehend your master plan Thor.
A name based on a Norse god...
lil' man,
An autonomous god is the god that liberal "Christians" believe in. Just think of that phrase...? The "liberal" is the anti-noun. It renders everything after it meaningless. Liberal "Christians" like you are liberals first and "Christians" whenever you want to be. Such an understanding lets us recognize that your god is an autonomous one and whether he or you can orient us towards the Truth is but a coin toss.
The autonomous god is one that requires nondiscrimination, nonjudgmentalism and absolute tolerance from its adherents. Meaning, he requires nothing of YOU. And in return, he is autonomous. Thus having no moral imperative to lead you towards truth. Meaning, this god may or may not orient YOU towards the truth, the good, the ordered... Or he may act as an autonomous god would... Arbitrarily, ambiguously and without any coherence. This is what the radical autonomist calls the "gray" area of life. The place where the autonomous god lingers, leaving all "free" to never find the truth.
lil' man,
No one denies the concept of "free-will," but proclaiming it void of context and situation is the liberal thing to do. Yeah, God gave us free-will, but God didn't tell us we couldn't call out those that abused that "free-will." If guys like Fisher, Nulan and you want to say that man's "free-will" is the highest principle then God must be subordinate to you?
And if God is subordinate to you then clearly I am too. This is just plain false, lil' homey.
Free will and an omniscient God can not coexist. It's either or.
Fisher,
They don't need to if they reside in different realms. In fact, only if you think "free-will" means the ability to do whatever you want (the pure liberal meaning) as opposed to having the free will to have a relationship with God (the Christian understanding) can you pretend to posit the above.
In reality, as a radical autonomist, all you are saying is that there is no standard by which to judge you except for yourself as judge and standard-bearer.
So there is a realm where God does not exist?
No... But there is a realm where "free-will" does not exist as you understand it.
Do you have free will , Farst?
Yeah Fisher... I'll always have the free-will to establish a relationship with God. I also have the free-will to turn away and live in eternal isolation.
On the hand, I don't have a "free-will" to do anything I want as the radical autonomist would claim!
Did God know how you would exercise your free will (which choice you would make) before you actually exercised it (made that choice}? What say you, Farst?
"Free will and an omniscient God can not coexist. It's either or."
Whys that?
Just because something could be predicted, means it was dictated?
<> <> <>
<> <> <>
<> <> <>
<> <> <>
That's applause ladies and gentlemen.
Thordaddy is leading the series 3 games to none.
Well, Farst?
Fisher,
Your type of "free-will" doesn't exist. The type of "free-will" that claims we can do whatever we want or make any choice we want DOES NOT exist.
Can your "free-will" let you do whatever you want?
If you have to make a choice, is that "free-will?"
Free-will, properly understood, is the free-will to seek or not to seek a relationship with God.
This free-will is ALWAYS available to ALL that understand its true meaning.
Your "free-will" is the fantasy of the radical autonomist.
Fisher,
Before you respond with a comment or maybe no comment, who commanded YOU to do so or not to do so...? Yourself...? Are you now both cause and effect? Are you now the creator of reality?
Farst...
"Free-will, properly understood, is the free-will to seek or not to seek a relationship with God.".
I've got no problem with that definition of free will.
Now, given that definition, did God know how you would exercise your free will (which choice you would make - to seek a relationship with God or not) before you actually exercised it (made that choice}? What say you, Farst?
Fisher asks,
Now, given that definition, did God know how you would exercise your free will (which choice you would make - to seek a relationship with God or not) before you actually exercised it (made that choice}?Your argument posits that unless God knew all my actions from conception through death before I actually performed said actions then He is less than omniscient. Likewise, only if God is less than omniscient can I truly possess "free-will."
But as I said earlier, we already know that the liberalized notion of "free-will" is a false one. We know that our God ordained "free-will" is actually limited in scope and application. It's first limited to those that actually believe in the Christian concept of God ordained free-will. Secondly, it's limited because we CANNOT DO whatever we want whenever we want. We also know that having to make a choice is not an exercise in "free-will."
So if TRUE "free-will" is not the liberalized kind, but is actually a limited free-will then WHO creates the limitations? Or do you suggest that a limited free-will is no free-will at all?
You see, I am willing to surmise that God has given us much leeway, but nonetheless, we still make a finite numbers of moves on His game board. Does He know ALL our probable moves and ALL their probable effects and all our probable next moves and all their...? And if He does, does that mean my life is predetermined and hence I lack true free-will? I don't think so... It just doesn't seem to me that God knowing what YOU WILL do before you do means that YOU lack free-will unless YOU are willing to concede that God tells YOU what to do in the first place...?
[quote]Why argue with radical autonomists like Fisher and Nulan? [/quote]
DV:
I protest your molestation of my friend KCnulan's image. He IS NOT an "autonomist". He is an "Anarco-Capitalist!!!" and the first BLACK ONE at that!
Please show respect and call him what he wants to be called even if he violates so much of what this group defines itself as believing in the Wikipedia write up.
Well, Farst, you're evasive as ever in response to a direct question.
Nonetheless, let's work through this.
If God is omniscient then God's knowledge is not limited to the probability of your choice, but God knew what your choices would be before you even were born.
Now if you were able to make a different choice from the choice God knew already beforehand you would make, then God wouldn't have known that choice and therefore not be omniscient. If God is not omniscient, then God is not God.
But as God by definition is indeed omniscient then your choice is known before you make it and you can not make another choice. Therefore there is no free will.
If there is no free will, then there is no sinner. For the perquisite of being a sinner is having responsibility for the act of sinning. But if God is the creator of all things, then God created you in the knowledge to yu would sin, God created you as a sinner. Since your sinning was predetermined before you even came into existence, then you certainly can't be held responsible.
If you can't be held responsible, then to punish you for something you are not responsible for is unjust. That then would make God unjust.
If Justice = God, and Injustice = Satan, then an omniscient God who punishes sinners = Satan.
Quite a conundrum, Farst. Wouldn't you agree?
Thor is funny.
If you can't do whatever you want, then it ain't free will.
I'm still waiting for a bibical basis for your points.
Cause, I distinctly remember Paul telling the early church that just because the HAD freedom, doesn't mean they should exercise it.
The existence of free will was a never a question. The question was how do you use that free will.
To serve God or to serve his enemies.
Thor is conflating the idea of sin with the idea of free will.
Yes, there are things we can do as human beings that go against God's will. Yes, they are wrong and we will be punished for doing them.
However, we can STILL do them.
I really, REALLY do not see the conflict here.
I can do what I want. I can suffer the consquences for my actions.
It's so simple.
"Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reapeth."
This is basic Bible 101.
Mike
God knew my choice. There was no way I could have made another choice but the one God knew I would make.
The only problem is I didn't know what choice I could make.
So, the choice was there, in my mind.
See, while God has a plan for the path of the world, we as human beings are not privy to the details of that plan. Each of us live our lives mostly blind to the future, and often blind to God's plans beyond a general understanding.
Thus, all of our choices are made freely and with autonomy.
Your question, ain't a new question. I asked it of my Sunday School teacher at 8 years old.
He couldn't answer. So, I read my Bible, talked to God, and figured out how it worked for myself.
If you approach God looking for ways to disprove his existence, you'll find them.
If you approach him looking for reasons to serve him, you'll find those as well.
I ain't looking to prove or disprove the existence of God, Big Man. I'm just thinking a problem through logically.
Now, while your solution is quite ingenious, it is, sorry mate, at the end of the day quite disingenuous.
Your argument basically posits that God created you in self-deceptive mode, letting you think you have the choice, but, in actuality that choice is already set by God.
Fisher,
If God knew the choices that I would have to make before I actually made then how does this deny my "free-will" unless you are to concede that God commanded me to make those choices? Such a concession posits the existence of God and shows the falseness of the liberalized "free-will" that you hold dear.
So again, I reject your notion of absolute free-will being something real and present in our lives. It's not. Our will has always been and will always be limited. This limitation is what you deny even though you KNOW that you cannot do whatever you want whenever you want.
Now, who created these limitations on your free-will and does that actually mean your life was predetermined and you have NO free-will?
Fisher,
If you have the free-will to reject the notion of God's existence, but you don't have the free-will to do whatever you want whenever you want, do you have free-will at all?
and Fisher, your question presumes God even deals in a concept as trite as ... "knowledge".
Certainly, DV. Since God is the creator of everything, GOD is also the creator of knowledge. Since GOD created knowledge, God deals with the concept of knowledge, at the very least when he created it.
I don't know Fish. I created a paper-airplane for my son.
But I don't play with it.
Limiting God to our own experience ... but on steroids, is arrogantly ignorant.
Nah man. I suspect mere "knowledge" is a relatively low level cognitive activity for ... God.
DV's last comment is the dopest one of the thread...
Mankind tries to define God based on it's limited "knowledge" of how the world works.
Just remember what God told Job when Job thought to question God's plan.
"Where were you when I created the world?"
The idea that mankind could comprehend the actions, motivations and plans of an omnipotent being is just beyond arrogant. But folks keep doing it everyday.
Big Man...
"Nah man. I suspect mere "knowledge" is a relatively low level cognitive activity for ... God.".
And yet the concept of "knowing" is at the heart of the definition of God:
All-knowing, All-powerful, All-present.
According to all versions of the Bible that I've seen, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent is the very definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of God.
So if you wanna redefine God, be my guest, but be aware that you are redefining God out of God's Christian (and Judeo and Islamic) existence.
Big Man...
"The idea that mankind could comprehend the actions, motivations and plans of an omnipotent being is just beyond arrogant.".
Who is talking about comprehending God?
I just posited a simple problem and showed that there was no solution to the paradox.
On the other hand, it was you Big Man who made several, but in particular one, statement about God's state of mind:
"God knew my choice. There was no way I could have made another choice but the one God knew I would make.".So here you categorically state (comprehend) what God knew and knows. And then you turn around to say that "the idea that mankind could comprehend the actions, motivations and plans of an omnipotent being is just beyond arrogant.".
No offense, Bra, but from this follows that, since you are a mere human being, you were arrogant to state "God knew...".
I just posited a simple problem and showed that there was no solution to the paradox. - (well, actually there is, and DV and I chewed through this one before.)
Michael
I didn't try to understand "how" God knew, I just stated the fact that he did.
I can state the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, it would be arrogant of me to try to tell you I understood how.
I can't explain the how, nobody can. That's the trap that too many cats, religious and otherwise, fall in to.
I just believe that something happened based on the things I've been presented. Other folks don't believe. I don't have any magic answers, or complex explanations.
It's truly a faith thing.
But, I do know that I offered my explanation for the free will thing. You said it was no good.
So be it. I'm cool. It worked for me, and I tend to like logic.
Cool and the gang, Big Man. By the way, the comment above that starts with the quote "Nah, man..." was of course directed at DV and not at you.
Cool, I figured that was for DV.
Far be it for me to get mistaken for the blackest man on these here internets.
You cats bring up an interesting point.
To me being a "Christian" means not much more than being Christ like.
I'm starting to have doubts about the 'rising from the dead' portion of contemporary Christian theology.
I believe that is actually part of the Gnostic hijacking of Christianity.
The death and resurrection are actually pagan notions that have appeared throughout religious history for thousands of years before Jesus of Nazareth.
These esoteric aspects of Christianity were actually introduced by Paul well after the death of Christ and did not become part of the Christian canon until the Conference of Nicene (sp) in the 4th Century.
Muslims who believe Christ was a prophet, do not buy into the death and resurrection story either.
If one looks at the rampant secularization of the Christian faith (46% of black young people do not consider themselves as religious as their parents), we can get a hint at the self-destructing time bomb inserted in the faith.
If you are the anti-Christ, what better method to sabotage a religion than by becoming the head of it, and leading it down a logical dead-end?
Fisher,
There is no paradox. There is only your erroneously liberalized notion of "free-will."
Your stance posits that an omniscient God must have pre-determined our lives and therefore we have no "free-will." But because we have "free-will" then there is no omniscient God and hence no God at all.
In this regard, you are the garden-variety atheist. But what do we know about the existence or nonexistence of God?
We know that our "free-will" IS NOT absolute. We are not god-like.
Because we understand the above, we recognize that our free-will is limited. Meaning, we understand that we CANNOT do whatever we want whenever we want. We also recognize that our "will" will always battle with guilt, despair, pain and desperation and hence never be absolutely free will.
Yet, we have free-will and we can strive to free our wills. But how could we even know where to start in a world with no God?
And if we know that our free-will is limited, is that, as lil' man noted, the same as saying we have no free-will? And if we have no free-will because we have no absolute free-will (the true liberal/radical autonomist's logical last step) then our lives are predetermined and you have conceded to the existence of an omniscient God.
Fisher,
Do you have absolute "free-will" or not? And because absolute "free-will" is the only true "free-will" to the radical autonomist, does the known fact that YOU actually have limited free-will mean you have NO "free-will" at all?
Does this truth mean that your life is predetermined and thus you have conceded to an omniscient God?
Or, do you just concede the deterministic nature of evolution? Meaning, you are no more or less than what "evolution" demands of you? And because "evolution" is unfolding exactly how it must then you must concede that you really have no "free-will" and even if you thought you did- you are afterall a radical autonomist- how would "evolution" create "free-will" within you?
Post a Comment