Beleth
FAQ Creator
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2002
- Messages
- 4,125
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THE TOPIC IS CLOSING IN, AND AHEISTS ARE ABOUT TO LOOSE THE ARGUMENT
This is in response to muscleman's last response to me, whom I believe I do not need to quote at this point. It's not because I'm trying to pull a fast one; it's because I'm too lazy at this point to keep typing [ quote ] and [ /quote ] all the time.
Regarding existence vs. actions:
I'm not saying that actions aren't dependent on existence; I'm saying that the two are not identical. Take an inanimate object. A stone, for instance. It exists, but it does not act. It just sits there. If existence equated to actions, then since the stone does not act, it therefore does not exist.
Clearly this is an absurd conclusion. Clearly things exist that do not act. That's why existence is not the same as action. Nothing acts that does not exist, true, but plenty of things exist that do not act.
Regarding causes of existence:
If God created everything, then of course He's the cause of our existence. If there was a time that things didn't exist, and now things exist, and God didn't create them, then something else did. Could be "quantum ghostly physics", could be something else. But, since I have shown that existence != actions, this is pretty irrelevant to the meat of this discussion.
Regarding causes of actions:
It is logical and ethical, if not necessarily moral, to say that the cause of an action is responsible for that action. If a murderer shoots someone, the action that kills the victim is the bullet going through a victim's vital organ. The action that caused that was a small explosion of gunpowder in the barrel of the gun. The action that caused that is the hammer of the gun striking the back of the bullet. The action that caused that is the murderer's finger pulling the trigger.
Up to this point on the chain, I believe we would be in agreement. Where we diverge is back down the chain from here.
In a scenario that includes your version of God, the entity that caused the murderer's finger to move is God. God is, by your description, responsible not only for the murderer's existence, but also for the murderer's actions. Also, in this scenario, the punishment for this act would be exacted upon the murderer, and not God, even though God was responsible for the murder.
In a scenario that does not include God (such as, say, the American legal system), the entity that caused the murderer's finger to move is the murderer himself. And there the chain stops. It is irrelevant in this scenario what the cause of the murderer's existence was; the only thing that matters is the cause of the murderer's action. We don't go back any further down the chain because going down any more links towards the "quantum ghostly physics" level moves us away from what we consider fair and just.
Regarding being controlled:
Yes, it's true. I deny being controlled. I deny being controlled because I believe I am not controlled. Here's why I believe that.
0) Either there's a God or there isn't.
1) If there isn't, then there is nothing to control me. A God that does not exist cannot control me. The laws of physics do not control me (don't even bother, Franko); they don't even control themselves. That's what makes quantum mechanics so hard to comprehend - they basically say that you can't control, predict, or determine with any meaningful accuracy anything below a certain size, and that flies in the face of everything we've learned about classical physics up that point in our educations.
2) If there is a God, then either He controls me, or He doesn't.
2A) If He doesn't control me, then I am not controlled by definition.
2B) If He does control me, then He is forcing me to believe everything I believe, including the belief that I am not controlled. In other words, He is forcing me to believe something that is not true. This leads me to the conclusion that God is a jerk. But since I do not believe that God is a jerk either, and He is making me believe that He is a jerk, I end up in this little whirlpool of illogic and nonsense if I assume that God controls me.
So either I am not controlled, or I drown in a pool of nonsense.
Regarding fairness:
You were the one that proposed that a car should suffer for the actions of the driver.
You are the one that calls this scenario "how the system works here, therefore it is fair."
You were the one that implied, with your "50 gunshots" analogy, that this is absurd.
In other words, you are the one that's implying that your own definition of fairness is absurd.
Regarding old questions:
Okay, you have answered my "is this fair?" question now, and I have followed it to its logical conclusion above.
How about my other questions?
1) I have proposed that the proof-of-faith test proposed by Jesus in Matthew 17:19-20 is an adequate proof of the existence of God. Do you agree?
2) What is the functional difference between "being able to perform an action, but choosing not to" and "being unable to perform an action?"
And a new one:
3) You said that you taught catechism. May I inquire as to where?
This is in response to muscleman's last response to me, whom I believe I do not need to quote at this point. It's not because I'm trying to pull a fast one; it's because I'm too lazy at this point to keep typing [ quote ] and [ /quote ] all the time.
Regarding existence vs. actions:
I'm not saying that actions aren't dependent on existence; I'm saying that the two are not identical. Take an inanimate object. A stone, for instance. It exists, but it does not act. It just sits there. If existence equated to actions, then since the stone does not act, it therefore does not exist.
Clearly this is an absurd conclusion. Clearly things exist that do not act. That's why existence is not the same as action. Nothing acts that does not exist, true, but plenty of things exist that do not act.
Regarding causes of existence:
If God created everything, then of course He's the cause of our existence. If there was a time that things didn't exist, and now things exist, and God didn't create them, then something else did. Could be "quantum ghostly physics", could be something else. But, since I have shown that existence != actions, this is pretty irrelevant to the meat of this discussion.
Regarding causes of actions:
It is logical and ethical, if not necessarily moral, to say that the cause of an action is responsible for that action. If a murderer shoots someone, the action that kills the victim is the bullet going through a victim's vital organ. The action that caused that was a small explosion of gunpowder in the barrel of the gun. The action that caused that is the hammer of the gun striking the back of the bullet. The action that caused that is the murderer's finger pulling the trigger.
Up to this point on the chain, I believe we would be in agreement. Where we diverge is back down the chain from here.
In a scenario that includes your version of God, the entity that caused the murderer's finger to move is God. God is, by your description, responsible not only for the murderer's existence, but also for the murderer's actions. Also, in this scenario, the punishment for this act would be exacted upon the murderer, and not God, even though God was responsible for the murder.
In a scenario that does not include God (such as, say, the American legal system), the entity that caused the murderer's finger to move is the murderer himself. And there the chain stops. It is irrelevant in this scenario what the cause of the murderer's existence was; the only thing that matters is the cause of the murderer's action. We don't go back any further down the chain because going down any more links towards the "quantum ghostly physics" level moves us away from what we consider fair and just.
Regarding being controlled:
Yes, it's true. I deny being controlled. I deny being controlled because I believe I am not controlled. Here's why I believe that.
0) Either there's a God or there isn't.
1) If there isn't, then there is nothing to control me. A God that does not exist cannot control me. The laws of physics do not control me (don't even bother, Franko); they don't even control themselves. That's what makes quantum mechanics so hard to comprehend - they basically say that you can't control, predict, or determine with any meaningful accuracy anything below a certain size, and that flies in the face of everything we've learned about classical physics up that point in our educations.
2) If there is a God, then either He controls me, or He doesn't.
2A) If He doesn't control me, then I am not controlled by definition.
2B) If He does control me, then He is forcing me to believe everything I believe, including the belief that I am not controlled. In other words, He is forcing me to believe something that is not true. This leads me to the conclusion that God is a jerk. But since I do not believe that God is a jerk either, and He is making me believe that He is a jerk, I end up in this little whirlpool of illogic and nonsense if I assume that God controls me.
So either I am not controlled, or I drown in a pool of nonsense.
Regarding fairness:
You were the one that proposed that a car should suffer for the actions of the driver.
You are the one that calls this scenario "how the system works here, therefore it is fair."
You were the one that implied, with your "50 gunshots" analogy, that this is absurd.
In other words, you are the one that's implying that your own definition of fairness is absurd.
Regarding old questions:
Okay, you have answered my "is this fair?" question now, and I have followed it to its logical conclusion above.
How about my other questions?
1) I have proposed that the proof-of-faith test proposed by Jesus in Matthew 17:19-20 is an adequate proof of the existence of God. Do you agree?
2) What is the functional difference between "being able to perform an action, but choosing not to" and "being unable to perform an action?"
And a new one:
3) You said that you taught catechism. May I inquire as to where?
