Trenody

So simply reading about Mars and talking about it means your parrotting? Using your logic, one must walk on Mars to know about it. Kschmidt91 got his information from his church officials, which I would consider to be a reliable source for his question. Even if he was to do a good amount of personal research he would still be parrotting the books. Hate to say it, but technically your parrotting too.

__________________
"A man with one watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches is never quite sure." -Lee Segall

Vinterland

Thanks for explaining that.

That wasn't drected to you but I see you need somewelcoming so I welcome you to the forum, Kschmidt and I hope you enjoy posting ere.

If you would like, could you repost the questions you still have and I will try to answer the. Thans.

__________________
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
—Gibran Khalil Gibran, “The Greater Sea.”

shaun

par·rot /ˈpærət/ – verb (used with object)
- a person who, without thought or understanding, merely repeats the words or imitates the actions of another.

No, if he had done his research and defended his argument rather than just using a argumentum ad authoritatem fallacy (refering to someone in authority as a basis of proving an argument), then I wouldn't have called that parroting. If he _shows_ evidence for what he believes that he has thought through, then I would respect what he has to say and give it a proper reply.

Exactly. That was my point to him - without doing our own research.


I never criticized him - I asked him about his actions: parroting from what people tell him without reading about it himself. Please do not straw man my arguments.

I think he could go pick up the Bible and read it. I think he could go read something, anything on philosophy and basic logic principles.

Anything more than repeating what someone else has said.

shaun

Thanks for establishing the source of your viewpoint. Welcome, and please do have many opinions.

shaun

Yeah, I forgot to when I came in. I should go do that now. Thanks for the welcome.

jaej

Then you're questioning god's omniscience? And I thought christianity was stale and stagnant...this is new.

__________________
Μολὼν Λαβέ

Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate

Cleric_of_Reason

Well after reading through this thread my reply may seem like a brick wall jutting out of nowhere but I thought this would be the best place to post it.

One of the main things I struggle with having given up on Christianity, is the fact that God punishes us for using the free will he created us with according to the Christianity I was raised with. In other words, if God created me to make my own choices, why should I be punished if I don't want to follow Christianity?

I remember many a time listening to sermons and reading in the Bible how if I didn't follow God's principles I was to be rejected by Him. How can God reject me for doing something he created me to do?

Of course all of this is under the assumption that God exists. I'm just asking this from the standpoint of someone who has been raised to believe he does.

__________________
I'm tired of living under a desk lamp. I'm ready to find the real light.

Trenody

I've thought about that, but haven't ever really dwelled on it. Another question I have is this: Do animals (excluding humans of course) have free will? If so, why not? I may be wrong, but if I rememeber correctly the Catholic faith says only humans are capable of free will. So does that mean animals are man's (or God's) play things?

__________________
"A man with one watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches is never quite sure." -Lee Segall

brandon13830

I haven't read all of the posts in here so sorry if I'm bringing up something that's already been covered, but the argument that God's omniscience does not affect our free will just does not make any sense to me. Here's something I posted on a Christian forum and never got a what I felt was a satisfactory answer:

God created the Universe and also knew exactly how everything would play out from the beginning until the end of time. That's why the "God is just an all knowing observer," idea doesn't fly with me. If he created the Universe and also knows how I will react in everything that I do, how is that different from someone who writes a play and then watches the play performed? Or, say a character in a play has a decision to make; does the character have the free will to do anything other than what was assigned for him to do by the playwright? No, he doesn't because if he does do anything other than what was written by the playwright, it isn't the same play. Man's free will and God's omniscience would have to be the same way, I would think. I cannot do anything unexpected of me by God for if I do I cannot be living in a Universe created by God.

Unless your argument is that God did not obtain the ability of omniscience until after he created the Universe, which in my opinion would be a really astounding claim, I just find it utterly impossible for man's free will and God's omniscience to co-exist.

Where is the error in my reasoning here?

Trenody

First of all, I thank you. That's exactly what I've (and I think Kschmidt) have been trying to say. Free will is proportional to how much God knows, and if God is omniscient then there is no true "freewill". This just further proves the Heienberg Principle mentioned earlier.

Also, I see no error at all.

__________________
"A man with one watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches is never quite sure." -Lee Segall