Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Denying Self-Consciousness, Quantum and a Christian answer to the Problem of Evil
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo Augustine pretty much invented the concept based on his understanding of Scripture and you guys stole it.
The question is why do men make bad choices, why do they disobey God. The fall and Original Sin simply point to the fact that man chose to disobey God early on and continue to do so. So sin violates the moral will of God. That is evil, there is something deeply wrong with us. So what do you have?
Again . . .
The bottom line is there never was a Fall from an idealic utopian myth without death, sin and suffering brought on by succumbing to Evil temptation by Adam and Eve afflicting all humanity. Humanity has always been human and fallible capable of making bad decisions.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostRidiculous, if you believe in God, Augustine does not 'invent' the concept of the nature of evil in the world and human nature.
The question is 'Why do humans make bad choices?' The concept of the Fall and Original Sin does not simply point to the fact that humans disobey God. In traditional Christian beliefs it is the cause of Evil, Sin and death in the world, and not only humanity by temptation from an Evil Source. The mythical story describes humanity and nature a utopian idealic reality that ended in suffering, sin and death caused by humans Fall tempted to sin by Evil.
Again . . .
The bottom line is there never was a Fall from an idealic utopian myth without death, sin and suffering brought on by succumbing to Evil temptation by Adam and Eve afflicting all humanity. Humanity has always been human and fallible capable of making bad decisions.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostIt really doesn't matter if one takes Genesis literally or metaphorically, the problem remains the same we are all infected by sin. Or as you say fallibility. And it goes back to our first parents whether they live in ideal conditions or not. And they passed on that fallible nature to all humanity, all their offspring, since we are all still obviously flawed. And in need of salvation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostOf course it makes a difference seer, if Genesis is only metaphor then we weren't infected by sin by the first humans, they, and so we, came into the world that way. Whether you believe Genesis to be a literal history or not, all you can argue is that A+E were the first to sin, not they infected humanity by doing so.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostOf course it makes a difference seer, if Genesis is only metaphor then we weren't infected by sin by the first humans, they, and so we, came into the world that way. Whether you believe Genesis to be a literal history or not, all you can argue is that A+E were the first to sin, not they infected humanity by doing so.
The foundation belief of traditional Christianity for the belief that Adam and Eve, the Fall, and Original Sin is not a metaphor. It is clear that the belief of the Church Fathers, and the beliefs of the churches through the Millennia is that these are in one way or another very very real. Most Christians in the USA believe in a literal Genesis, whether YEC or OEC, or come variation, and Evil, big E, is very very real. If you go this route than you are coming closer to the belief of the Baha'i Faith.
Do you believe the existence of Adam and Eve, the Fall and Original Sin are not real and only metaphors?Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-23-2017, 04:18 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe foundation belief of traditional Christianity for the belief that Adam and Eve, the Fall, and Original Sin is not a metaphor. It is clear that the belief of the Church Fathers, and the beliefs of the churches through the Millennia is that these are in one way or another very very real. Most Christians in the USA believe in a literal Genesis, whether YEC or OEC, or come variation, and Evil, big E, is very very real. If you go this route than you are coming closer to the belief of the Baha'i Faith.
Do you believe the existence of Adam and Eve, the Fall and Original Sin are not real and only metaphors?
Comment
-
The only thing that really works here is the initial bit about having self-consciousness in order to deny self-consciousness. Your son was being completely irrational in that case (or at least has some serious work to demonstrate his position). Descartes' Meditations are pretty solid insofar as cogito ergo sum is concerned.
Unfortunately, everything else goes off the rails pretty quick. Just a few items of note:
1) Free will is not required for science. That the outcomes, or even the creation of the experiments themselves, could be considered pre-determined doesn't change that experimentation, observation, and reporting is happening. Nothing about science says truth is being discovered, only that results are found and analyzed. It's worth noting, too, that predetermination isn't a necessary component of free will denial. Not all who deny free will also claim hard determinism. Far from it.
2) Intentionality is not a component of self-consciousness. It's conceivable for a being to will something without knowing it does so, and it's equally conceivable for a being to exist that knows it exists without possessing any innate desires.
3) Your intentionality didn't override biochemistry or physics. Your intentionality is part of the biochemistry and physics. The Penfield experiments demonstrate this. Likewise, the quote from Searle doesn't establish primacy of one or the other; it establishes multiple, independent components of intentionality.
4) Introducing quantum mechanics is always a fatal flaw, particularly in philosophical discussions. It's not nearly understood enough to definitively establish one concept over another. That a pair of scientists attempt to establish one thing or another doesn't change that fact. There are others who have attempted to establish something else entirely. We need more evidence, and until that time the jury will remain out.
5) Illustrating issues mentioned in #4 comes Karl Sabbagh. The quote provided doesn't establish much of anything except some problems faced by those attempting to define what 'you' are. This is an old question, known more popularly in its Thesian ship form. What one perceives as the 'self' isn't any specific part or piece, it's the continuity between them.
6) Further illustrating issues in #4 is the idea of humans creating the reality we live in. This is based on one person's extrapolation from one formulation of the Copenhagen interpretation. Which is to say it's an idea based on an idea based on idea based on an idea. That's not a solid basis for anything, let alone a solution to the supposed Problem of Evil.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostThe only thing that really works here is the initial bit about having self-consciousness in order to deny self-consciousness. Your son was being completely irrational in that case (or at least has some serious work to demonstrate his position). Descartes' Meditations are pretty solid insofar as cogito ergo sum is concerned.
Unfortunately, everything else goes off the rails pretty quick. Just a few items of note:
1) Free will is not required for science. That the outcomes, or even the creation of the experiments themselves, could be considered pre-determined doesn't change that experimentation, observation, and reporting is happening. Nothing about science says truth is being discovered, only that results are found and analyzed. It's worth noting, too, that predetermination isn't a necessary component of free will denial. Not all who deny free will also claim hard determinism. Far from it.
2) Intentionality is not a component of self-consciousness. It's conceivable for a being to will something without knowing it does so, and it's equally conceivable for a being to exist that knows it exists without possessing any innate desires.
3) Your intentionality didn't override biochemistry or physics. Your intentionality is part of the biochemistry and physics. The Penfield experiments demonstrate this. Likewise, the quote from Searle doesn't establish primacy of one or the other; it establishes multiple, independent components of intentionality.
4) Introducing quantum mechanics is always a fatal flaw, particularly in philosophical discussions. It's not nearly understood enough to definitively establish one concept over another. That a pair of scientists attempt to establish one thing or another doesn't change that fact. There are others who have attempted to establish something else entirely. We need more evidence, and until that time the jury will remain out.
5) Illustrating issues mentioned in #4 comes Karl Sabbagh. The quote provided doesn't establish much of anything except some problems faced by those attempting to define what 'you' are. This is an old question, known more popularly in its Thesian ship form. What one perceives as the 'self' isn't any specific part or piece, it's the continuity between them.
6) Further illustrating issues in #4 is the idea of humans creating the reality we live in. This is based on one person's extrapolation from one formulation of the Copenhagen interpretation. Which is to say it's an idea based on an idea based on idea based on an idea. That's not a solid basis for anything, let alone a solution to the supposed Problem of Evil.
I will say though, you weren't boring and I appreciate that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostIt really doesn't matter if one takes Genesis literally or metaphorically, the problem remains the same we are all infected by sin. Or as you say fallibility. And it goes back to our first parents whether they live in ideal conditions or not. And they passed on that fallible nature to all humanity, all their offspring, since we are all still obviously flawed. And in need of salvation.
I do not believe that you nor any of the other conservative evangelical Christians would remotely interpret Genesis as pragmatically as metaphorical.
The claim of human being infected with evil indeed translates to 'Evil' infecting humanity from a previous idealic world without death and sin, which is an ancient mythology, and the traditional view of the Church Fathers and all of the Churches until recently, when mediocrity of some take a more pragmatic interpretation. The view of the Baha'i Faith is there is no Evil infecting humanity, but humanity Created fallible with a will, and the actions of humanity that are wrong are simply absence of Good, and humanity has always been Created as fallibly human, and the spiritual evolution and advancement of humanity toward salvation as individuals and humanity as a whole.Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-25-2017, 09:04 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostIt really doesn't matter if one takes Genesis literally or metaphorically, the problem remains the same we are all infected by sin. Or as you say fallibility. And it goes back to our first parents whether they live in ideal conditions or not. And they passed on that fallible nature to all humanity, all their offspring, since we are all still obviously flawed. And in need of salvation.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIf you're prepared to take Genesis "metaphorically" then presumably you take the second Adam, Jesus...who takes away the sin of the world...metaphorically too. Yes?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNope, and that does not follow. And I did not say that I took Genesis metaphorically, one could though. I'm agnostic on the matter, though I lean towards a more literal view
Problem, your sitting on the fence and getting splinters in your butt sliding back and forth, and in reality it does not work in the traditional belief of Christianity, nor your view. The Baha'i view nor mine is not remotely the view of traditional Christianity concerning the nature of Evil.
The issue is Evil, and the roots of very real Evil in traditional Christianity as understood by the Church Fathers and ALL the traditional Churches in history. A metaphorical approach and the absence of evil is not compatible with this history of belief in Christianity, and the conflict between Good and Evil, nor is it remotely your belief.
To support this just simply read the Book of Revelation, which portray's a classic black and white conflict between Good and a very real Evil.
The bottom line is the metaphorical belief in Genesis and the purpose of Jesus Christ is not compatible with traditional Christian beliefs concerning the nature of Evil.
You conveniently side stepped Tassman's question.
Again . . .
The view of the Baha'i Faith, and I, is there is no Evil infecting humanity, but humanity Created fallible with a will, and the actions of humanity that are wrong are simply absence of Good, and humanity has always been Created as fallibly human, and the spiritual evolution and advancement of humanity toward salvation as individuals and humanity as a whole.Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-26-2017, 07:54 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNope, that does not follow . . .Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSnake, please stop talking to me.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
160 responses
507 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 07:28 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
|
88 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-01-2024, 09:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
133 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment