Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Our God Is The Cool God, And Yours Sucks!
How do all these people who believe, without evidence, in god, know that their particular brand of evidence-free belief is the right one? From IBN Live, Christian irrationalists rudely interrupted the prayers of Hindu irrationalists on the Senate floor:

For the first time, a Hindu clergyman led the US Senate in a Hindu prayer at the start of a session on Thursday. However, three people were arrested for shouting protests against the prayer ceremony in the visitors' gallery before the prayer began.

The shouting was audible on the tape around 0930 hrs local time as Director of Interfaith Relations at a Hindu temple, Rajan Zed, delivered the short opening prayer.

Capitol Police Sgt Kimberly Schneider stated that two women and one man were arrested in the Senate visitors’ gallery for disruption of Congress, a misdemeanor. The three were shouting slogans such as ''This is an abomination''.

"At this time, we don’t know their religion," Schneider was quoted as saying by agencies.

Afterward, the Christian fundanutters proudly claimed responsibility:

Ante Pavkovic, Kathy Pavkovic, and Kristen Sugar were all arrested in the chambers of the United States Senate as that chamber was violated by a false Hindu god. The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the One True God, Jesus Christ. This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers.

"Not one Senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood. They stood on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! There were three in the audience with the courage to stand and proclaim, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' They were immediately removed from the chambers, arrested, and are in jail now. God bless those who stand for Jesus as we know that He stands for them." Rev. Flip Benham, Director, Operation Save America/Operation Rescue

I'm not as clued in on the teachings of Jesus as Flippy the Pinhead here, but I seem to remember stuff about healing the sick, clothing the naked, and such...not shouting down people who don't share your primitive beliefs in the U.S. Senate.

And as for which unproven belief in god wins you entrance to the right big door in the sky: If you grow up the rationality-challenged child of Christian parents you'll believe in the Christian god. If you grow up the rationality-challenged Jewish parents...well, you get the drill.

And, FYI, the founding fathers weren't such big fans of god.

Posted by aalkon at July 14, 2007 9:00 AM

Comments

TO: Amy, et al.
RE: This Incident

"I'm not as clued in on the teachings of Jesus as Flippy the Pinhead here, but I seem to remember stuff about healing the sick, clothing the naked, and such...not shouting down people who don't share your primitive beliefs in the U.S. Senate." -- Amy Alkon

Pretty accurate observation, there, Amy. He didn't behave as rudely to people with different religious beliefs as His. He DID behave rudely towards people of His own religious belief who were supposedly the 'teachers' of His people but were behaving badly. Something about whipping the money changers and sellers out of the Temple. Driving them back into the street and marketplace, where they belonged.

RE: Hang On to Your Lug Nuts!

"How do all these people who believe, without evidence, in god, know that their particular brand of evidence-free belief is the right one?" -- Amy Alkon

It's Time for an Overhaul!!!! -- The Mask

This could be a VERY long discussion, for those who are interested.

I think the preface for this was set a few doors down the hallway from here. Something about a discussion between myself and justin case. I gave some examples of how I came to be on this path.

In short, personal experience is a BIG factor in being convinced and I mean in the way that the Oracle, in the Matrix put it to Neo; knowing balls and bone.

There are other ways to know. Prophecy is one of the more powerful ones. Seeing prophecy fulfilled, for example.

[Note: The biggest obstacle to overcome in understanding prophecy, in many instances, is to look at what was written from the understanding of the person who wrote it.]

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Walk a mile in my 'sandals'.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 14, 2007 1:08 PM

You have a Hindu clergyman leading a prayer in the halls of power of a country where Christianity is the most common religion.

You have 3 nutjobs (out of a population of 300 million) who create an obnoxious but non-violent commotion. Not exactly a riot or widespread civil disturbance. The Hindu clergyman is not hurt or even threatened with harm.

This actually speaks very well of both Christianity and the United States.

Posted by: winston at July 14, 2007 1:48 PM

The Capitol protestors think they have made a case for excluding everyone's faith but theirs...

...but in fact they have made the case for removing everyone's faith from the business of government.

I have made the point before that when you see someone boasting about their faith, you are looking at ego, not piety; ignorance, not erudition.

Eusebius would lie for the Church. Millions of Americans will cheerfully do likewise, for faith allows them to stop the hideously painful process of thinking.

Posted by: Radwaste at July 14, 2007 1:50 PM

Winston, the lack of a riot or "widespread civil disturbance" was the product of the venue, and isn't any indication of the potential for same.

There is growing support for religious war in the USA due to the provocations of Islam, and little in the ways of checks and balances to see that the self-assigned "warriors" are more than mirror images of each other in savagery.

The layman only knows religion as a sanctuary from the confusing barrage of crap emitted from the TV set, and doesn't care about the rights of others; he cannot name his own!

Posted by: Radwaste at July 14, 2007 2:00 PM

TO: winston
RE: Good Point

"This actually speaks very well of both Christianity and the United States." -- winston

I wonder what would happen if a christian tried to lead the parliament in New Delhi in prayer. Or, better yet, what passes for parliament in Saudi Arabia.

Heck. A christian can't even get into Mecca. And people who are Muslims but look like they might be christians are shot on the side of the highway leading to that city. Talk about extreme profiling......

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Kill them all. Let Allah sort em out.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 14, 2007 2:03 PM

TO: Radwaste
RE: Not Really

"The Capitol protestors think they have made a case for excluding everyone's faith but theirs...

...but in fact they have made the case for removing everyone's faith from the business of government." -- Radwaste

You cannot separate 'religious beliefs' from government. All laws are based on morality. Morality is based on 'religious beliefs'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Those who would separate politics from religion will never understand one nor the other. -- Lord Morley, Viscount of Blackburn]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 14, 2007 2:06 PM

The dark shadow of fascism is always descending on the United States, yet always seems to land somewhere else.

Posted by: winston at July 14, 2007 2:09 PM

Actually, these particular nut jobs were following the commandments to the letter, without killing the Hindu priest for blasphemy. Damned you popular social trends!

What I am waiting for is the excuses from the religious moderates stating that the 3 screwballs were not the models of Christianity. I beg to differ. They are just more honest about their mental problems and feel no sense of shame of sharing it with the public, because its their faith.

Posted by: Joe at July 14, 2007 2:16 PM

I meant, damn and not damned. Damn!

Posted by: Joe at July 14, 2007 2:21 PM

You cannot separate 'religious beliefs' from government. All laws are based on morality. Morality is based on 'religious beliefs'.

Religious beliefs are one source of guidance on moral behavior, but they are by no means the exclusive source. People have been working on the rational foundations of moral behavior since at least the time of Aristotle; one need not rely on the dicta of a deity to explain why it's wrong to steal, murder, etc. A number of non-religious approaches to morality can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Also, laws specify what is legal and illegal; they need not have anything to do with morality at all.

Posted by: justin case at July 14, 2007 2:30 PM

TO: justin case
RE: It's STILL....

"People have been working on the rational foundations of moral behavior since at least the time of Aristotle; one need not rely on the dicta of a deity to explain why it's wrong to steal, murder, etc. A number of non-religious approaches to morality can be found here:" -- justin case

....a 'religious belief'.

I believe that even the Supreme Court has ruled that secular humanism is a 'religious belief'.

They just base their particular 'morality' on a different criteria.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I am the lord MY god. Thou shalt have no other god before 'ME'! -- The Atheist's first commandment]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 14, 2007 2:50 PM

"I wonder what would happen if a Christian tried to lead the parliament in New Delhi in prayer"

Nothing, because there are no prayers in Indian parliament.

Think separation.

Posted by: Gaurav at July 14, 2007 3:00 PM

Supreme Court has ruled that secular humanism is a 'religious belief'.

If true, a silly legal fiction. And certainly not what you meant when you wrote "Morality is based on 'religious beliefs'."

Posted by: justin case at July 14, 2007 3:18 PM

Exactly, Gaurav.

Turkey's parliament building in Ankara, 2 female representatives were arrested for wearing their hajibs in the building. It was a publicity stunt to attack the nation's secular laws through public disobedience.

There are no religious symbols allowed in any of Turkey's government buildings. No faith based schools. Individuals may practice their own particular faith. Religious communities are closely regulated by the government.

Complete separation.

Posted by: Joe at July 14, 2007 3:30 PM

You have 3 nutjobs (out of a population of 300 million) who create an obnoxious but non-violent commotion.

And then a Christian leader comes out to commend them for their rudeness.

Furthermore, we shouldn't have prayers at all in government.

As Gaurav pointed out above, "Think separation."

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 14, 2007 3:32 PM

TO: justin case
RE: Fictitious, Eh?

"If true, a silly legal fiction." -- justin case

Well...here's a bit of education for you....

The Supreme Court stated this [secularism is a religious belief] back in the 1960s. This came out in Abington School District v Schempp (1963), where Justice Clark, writing for the Court, said,

"We agree of course that the State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe."

Something to do with a level playing field, I suppose.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Justice: What comes down from the bench when the decision is in your favor. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 14, 2007 5:10 PM

TO: Gaurav
RE: Yeah?

"Nothing, because there are no prayers in Indian parliament." -- Gaurav

I think you're missing the point, here. What IF someone were to offer a [christian] prayer there.

Or a Muslim one, for that matter.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in public schools.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 14, 2007 5:12 PM

"All laws are based on morality. Morality is based on 'religious beliefs'."

Sorry, that's backwards. As a cruise through www.adherents.com will show you, religion came after morality; each sect codified factors found in their neighborhood which are common worldwide. Thus, organized religion is merely codified morality, like laws. If religion was as "personal" as many claim, there would be no need of "leaders".

Posted by: Radwaste at July 14, 2007 5:21 PM

To : Chuck Pelto

"I think you're missing the point, here. What IF someone were to offer a [christian] prayer there."

Chuck, I am not sure if you have ever been to India as yet, or know a lot about the country, but, Indians celebrate almost all the religions available in India. If there was to be a prayer in the Indian Parliament, no one other than the extreme Fundies would oppose it.

Again, India doesn't go about branding herself as the Beacon of Hope for all who are being persecuted for the Religious beliefs. So she doesn't need to maintain the High Moral Ground as America does.

Posted by: Aj at July 14, 2007 6:44 PM

Chuck,
Evasive again.

Do you know what the term "legal fiction" means?

And when you wrote "All laws are based on morality. Morality is based on 'religious beliefs'." were you thinking of secular humanism as one of the religious beliefs upon which morality is founded (hint: this one's yes/no; anything else just means you're dicking around).

Posted by: justin case at July 14, 2007 7:03 PM

Who are more moral? The athiests who behave ethically or the religious?

Personally I think its the athiests - they arent basing their behavior on the fear of hell or promise of heaven.

Incedentally I have no idea why any christian fears hell, after all all you have to do is claim Jesus as your savior and repent some time before final judgment. As final judgement is supposed to happen after the end of and rebirth of the world all you have to do is say "I repent and take Jesus as my savior" at any time before your pesonal moment of judgement is over. Looking at christian dogma logically there is no way anyone winds up going to hell no matter what they did.

Posted by: lujlp at July 14, 2007 7:32 PM

Don't forget the incompatibility of omniscience and free will too.

They should have spent a little more time figuring out that little problem, before putting it on paper.

Posted by: Joe at July 14, 2007 7:43 PM

I meant, putting it down on paper.

Posted by: Joe at July 14, 2007 7:49 PM

The Supreme Court has never ruled that secular humanism is a religion. That is just more misinformation. In fact, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, when they refused to hear the 1994 case Peloza v. Capistrano School District, stated: "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are 'religions' for Establishment Clause purposes."

I find it interesting that the quote Chuck Pelto offers as "a bit of education" about the fictitious ruling actually has nothing to do with the legal status of secular humanism at all. Perhaps he didn't read it carefully. I would have expected him to quote from the dicta to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins decision, and misrepresent it as a ruling, as so many others have done.

This is one of the classic myths about secular humanism. (Number 3 on this list.)

Posted by: GodlessRose at July 15, 2007 1:32 AM

Thanks - great link, GodlessRose.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 15, 2007 10:47 AM

"I have no idea why any christian fears hell, after all all you have to do is claim Jesus as your savior and repent some time before final judgment"

Has nobody else ever read those Chick tracts? That's what always happens to the cartoon person in the end, even the mass murderers, they just say the magic words and are whisked off into heaven!

You can just live a horrible mean immoral life and still avoid hell!

Posted by: Chrissy at July 15, 2007 4:39 PM

TO: Radwaste
RE: Which Came First?

"Sorry, that's backwards. As a cruise through www.adherents.com will show you, religion came after morality; each sect codified factors found in their neighborhood which are common worldwide." -- Radwaste

Not familiar with 'adherents.com'. Therefore, I don't rate them well in terms of accuracy and reliability.

Religion and morality are interchangeable. Whether you believe in a diety or not. As I pointed out, earlier, the SCOTUS agrees, vis-a-vis the existence of a 'diety'. Secular humanism is a religious belief; legally speaking. Whether YOU like it or not.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. -- Thomas Jefferson]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 16, 2007 2:54 PM

TO: Aj
RE: Religion in India

"I am not sure if you have ever been to India as yet, or know a lot about the country, but, Indians celebrate almost all the religions available in India. If there was to be a prayer in the Indian Parliament, no one other than the extreme Fundies would oppose it." -- Aj

Never been there. Probably never will go. Not particularly interested in it.

And, as for the Hindu and Muslim 'fundies' there. Aren't THEY having a 'fine time' killing each other; along with the occasional christian, for s---s and grins. A far cry from what happened in the Senate a few days ago. Eh?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 16, 2007 2:59 PM

TO: godlessrose
RE: Oh?

"The Supreme Court has never ruled that secular humanism is a religion." -- godlessrose

Then please explain away Abington School District v Schempp (1963).

Or, better yet, get it re-visited and overturned.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Help clear the court system: Legalize Dueling!]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 16, 2007 3:02 PM

TO: godlessrose
RE: Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)

"I would have expected him to quote from the dicta to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins decision, and misrepresent it as a ruling, as so many others have done." -- godlessrose

Out of curiosity, which came latter? Abington School District v Schempp (1963)? Or Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)?

Which do you think would have precedence?

As for the link....

....I would think that godless secularists would have no qualms about lying. As opposed to 'God fearing' peoples.

After all, whose to punish them if they lied?

Not to forget that the 1994 case cited at that site was about some teacher being required to teach 'evolution'. Which is similar in nature to the Abington School District v Schempp (1963) case.

Furthermore, which do you think take precedence? A circuit court or the Supreme Court of the United States?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave. -- Thomas Jefferson]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 16, 2007 3:14 PM

TO: lujlp
RE: Who Is More 'Moral'?

"Who are more moral? The athiests who behave ethically or the religious?" -- lujlp

From that old Book, both are.

The question becomes, who is the 'judge'? What is the 'measure'? Don't you think?

However, Satanists think one thing is 'moral'. Christians believe another is.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[It's all fun and games until someone gets sacrificed to Satan.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 16, 2007 3:17 PM

TO: Chrissy
RE: Hmmmm....

"That's what always happens to the cartoon person in the end, even the mass murderers, they just say the magic words and are whisked off into heaven!" -- Chrissy

...maybe you should read that old Book for yourself. There's a tad more to it than what you think.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Hearers should test what teachers say by reading the text themselves.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 16, 2007 3:22 PM

TO: Amy Alkon, et al.
RE: The Founding Fathers vs. God

Interesting link you provided about the alleged beliefs of the Founding Fathers.

I'm certain that some of them, especially Thomas Paine were of the thinking you think they were. As were describe in that site.

However, other writings of some of them suggest it's more than what you may think they thought....

I have sworn upon the alter of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. -- Thomas Jefferson
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. -- Thomas Jefferson
If God is just, I tremble for my country. -- Thomas Jefferson
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. -- Thomas Jefferson
The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. -- Thomas Jefferson
It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible. -- George Washington
Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God. -- George Washington
Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. -- Benjamin Franklin
God helps those who help themselves. -- Benjamin Franklin
Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God. -- Benjamin Franklin
Wine is constant proof that God loves us and loves to see us happy. -- Benjamin Franklin

These are not the writings of people who are atheists or deists. Nor of mamby-pamby pacifists.

Personally, I think that many of the writings in that site you linked to were more expressions extreme dissatisfaction with what was passing for organized religion in their time. And, sadly, some of it is still true today.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God builds his temple in the heart on the ruins of churches and religions. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 16, 2007 3:27 PM

P.S. Many Southern Baptists hate my guts. Why? Because I point out that God made yeast. And yeast is the tool He uses to make both bread and wine.

[Pagans may hate my guts. But they still worship the ground I walk on.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 16, 2007 3:29 PM

TO: Joe
RE: A Contradiction?

"Don't forget the incompatibility of omniscience and free will too." -- Joe

Explain it to me.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 16, 2007 3:36 PM

TO: justin case
RE: I Know....

"Do you know what the term "legal fiction" means?" -- justin case

...what a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States means. Do you?

Or should we just arbitrarily shut down ever Planned Parenthood abortion mill in the nation because we don't care for Roe v. Wade and wish to call IT a 'legal fiction'?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I do not fear for the souls of innocent children murdered in abortion. I am certain that God can take care of them. As I am equally certain He can 'take care of' those who murdered them.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 16, 2007 3:39 PM

TO: Chrissy
RE: Additionally....

"[Hearers should test what teachers say by reading the text themselves.]" -- Chuck Pelto

...that INCLUDES what you hear form ME.

Actually, much moreso, as I'm always a tad concerned that I've misunderstood something.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Teaching teaches the teacher as much as it does the pupil.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 16, 2007 4:33 PM

Chucky,

Omniscience implies determinism, and determinism is incompatible with free will.

Free will is the ability to control one's future. This doesn't imply absolute control, but matters within a person's limitations.

If someone had to choose something labeled A or B. Now this hypothetical person chose A, which is fine. Or he/she chose B is still fine. Either letters is fine as long as the person picks one. That would be a person's free will to chose whatever letter. Now if a god was an omniscient being... wouldn't he-she-it know which letter the hypothetical person would pick ahead of time? So that disqualifies a person's ability to have free will. If a supernatural being is aware of what is going to happen, hence it is predetermined. If the choice is already predetermined... how can a person with free will make the correct choice?

It’s an exercise in futility for the individual believer. For free will to exist, god couldn’t be omniscient. If god is omniscient, then free will couldn’t exist.

Posted by: Joe at July 16, 2007 8:06 PM

"Furthermore, we shouldn't have prayers at all in government.

As Gaurav pointed out above, "Think separation."

Why not? If that is what the voters want. Nothing in the Constitution prevents it.

Posted by: winston at July 16, 2007 8:32 PM

Chuck Pelto: The quote you offer from Abington School District v Schempp (1963) does not even mention secular humanism. No one who speaks fluent English would mistake "religion of secularism" for "secular humanism", nor would they infer from the passage that secularism (of any sort) is in fact a religion. If there is a passage in the ruling that declares secular humanism a religion, then quote it already.

So far you have offered nothing but non sequiturs to back up this claim. Are you even serious?

Posted by: GodlessRose at July 17, 2007 12:31 AM

TO: Joe
RE: Omniscience vs. Free Will

"Omniscience implies determinism, and determinism is incompatible with free will." -- Joe

Not sure I agree with that. I think your first phrase "omniscience IMPLIES determinism" is a false premise. I've heard the argument before and it didn't seem correct to me then. It still doesn't. Doesn't have the right 'feel'. Nothing I can put a spiritual finger on, specifically. Unfortunately.

Omniscience is 'all knowing'.

Determinism is, for all intents and purposes in this discussion, 'there is no free will'.

One can, if they try, make a convoluted connection between the two. And many have. But if we apply Occam's Razor, it's too complex a connection.

Just because God knows everything, does not mean that we do not have 'free will'. Likewise, just because God knows what we're going to do, doesn't mean we do not have the 'free will' to do what we want.

From our perspective, it's like reading a novel. We, as the reader, are godlike, in our knowing everything that happens in the story. We're outside of it, looking in. But we don't know everything until we've read the story.

The writer of the story could be any 'free will' agent. The writer writes whatever they want.

Not a great analogy, but it will suffice.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 17, 2007 4:13 AM

TO: GodlessRose
RE:

"The quote you offer from Abington School District v Schempp (1963) does not even mention secular humanism. No one who speaks fluent English would mistake "religion of secularism" for "secular humanism", nor would they infer from the passage that secularism (of any sort) is in fact a religion." -- GodlessRose

First off, English is my native tongue.

Secondly, if your premise—that 'secular humanism' is not a 'religion'—it would be taught in public schools instead of being banned from schools, as it was in the ruling I cited.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. -- Abraham Lincoln]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 17, 2007 4:17 AM

TO: GodlessRose
RE: But Seriously, Folks

"So far you have offered nothing but non sequiturs to back up this claim. Are you even serious?" -- GodlessRose

A ruling by the SCOTUS, that is in force today, is hardly non sequitur.

Are YOU 'serious'? Claiming there is no such ruling? That it is not in force?

Or are you projecting?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. -- Ronald Reagan]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 17, 2007 4:22 AM

Yes, but does the reader get a chance to say to the author that he/she really didn't have a choice in participating with the actual construction of the ending of the novel?

Religious analogies are a device with limitations, used by religions to test a person if they will complete the thought processes or not. The faithful are happy with the basics of the analogy and will not ask further questions.

Posted by: Joe at July 17, 2007 12:14 PM

TO: Joe
RE: Analogies

"Religious analogies are a device with limitations, used by religions to test a person if they will complete the thought processes or not. The faithful are happy with the basics of the analogy and will not ask further questions." -- Joe

ALL analogies, not just those relating to 'religious' issues, are devices with limitations.

You haven't figured that one out yet? Surprising....

RE: The Omniscient vs. Free Will Think

You still have not proven they are related.

Or are you saying you're a 'slave' on this ball of dirt?

You MIGHT be trying to use reverse logic, that your Free Will proves that there is no God. But it's a fallacious argument. Why? Because you cannot prove that if God is omniscient, which the very argument that God exists is, pardon my use of religious terminology, anathema to you, you cannot make a direct connection between omniscience and free will. Because it doesn't exist. The philosophers of old had to make a Gordian Knot out of religious writings in order to get there. And Occam's Razor cuts that knot as Alexander's sword did the first such 'tangle'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to decieve.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 18, 2007 11:50 AM

TO: Joe
RE: Additionally

Just to help you get out of the rut you seem to be stuck in, i.e., this omniscience vs. free will business, let's try a little test to get you thinking.

Do you have 'free will'?

If "no" then you are a 'slave'.

If "yes" then you are a free human being.

Well. I have 'free will'. As much, possibly even MORE, than you think you do.

But, here's the paradox,....

....I AM a 'slave'. But of my own 'free will'.

Can you figure that one out?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[For the power of paradox opens your eyes;
And blinds those who say they can see. -- Michael Card, God's Own Fool]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 18, 2007 11:55 AM

Chuck-

How would you demonstrate that you have free will? You could be a predetermined machine whose predetermination is too complex for anyone to work out, except by waiting to see what you do? How would you distinguish these two possibilities?

Posted by: Norman at July 19, 2007 5:04 AM

TO: Norman
RE: How?

"How would you demonstrate that you have free will?" -- Norman

How about by not squashing you and every other atheist out of existence?

After all, doesn't God 'hate' atheists? Therefore, by not doing that, am I not 'opposing' God, as some bozos think He thinks?

Then again, I could go out and debauch myself. From a christian perspective, that's opposed to God's will as well.

I have the choice to do either, or the opposite. I choose for myself. And I make my choices based on....wait for it....love of others more than I love myself.

But, being human, sometimes I 'stumble' a bit.

Hope that helps....

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The only Guy I know who was 'perfect' got nailed to a tree.]

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at July 19, 2007 8:46 AM

Chuck-

That's a pretty silly answer, as I'm sure you are aware. I was hoping for something better!

You couldn't squash every atheist out of existence any more than you could fly in the air. Not doing so is more a demonstration that you are bound by physical law than of your free will.

Anyway ... so you choose for yourself, based on your love of others. Doesn't that mean that your behaviour is largely determined by your love of others? That seems to be arguing against free will, not for it.

Posted by: Norman at July 19, 2007 12:00 PM

Leave a comment