Major plot holes in the bible

[black-dragon]

Im not sure what your getting at, is there a point to this and what does it have to do with free will?

And you still havent answered my request.

The point is that he can't answer your question so he's just going to talk about colors instead. I've asked him that same question a few times and he still hasn't answered.

[SigniferOne]

Im not sure what your getting at, is there a point to this and what does it have to do with free will?

You didn't answer my question: do you or do you not see blue? Prove it. Yes there is a point to this, because all subjective experiences such as free will and perception are not demonstrable. You asked me to "show" how I used my will, and I answered that that's impossible. You can, however, prove that it is logically incoherent to make a statement of free will not existing.

And you still havent answered my request.

What's that?

The point is that he can't answer your question so he's just going to talk about colors instead.

Do you have anything to add or are you going to troll on the coattails of other people's conversations?

What is this? Only faithful people have morals?

No, I said that among the faithful the only way to distinguish them would be by the morals they practice.

[newt]

No, I said that among the faithful the only way to distinguish them would be by the morals they practice.

If you say so..It may be what you meant but it's not what you actually said

Just by the definition of being out of time. And free will being logically incoherent to refute. And morality being the only means to distinguish the faithful from the not. It all makes sense.

[SigniferOne]

If you say so..It may be what you meant but it's not what you actually said

I see the source of the confusion, it was a clumsy wording on my part. What I was trying to say was this: in Christian theology virtue stems from faith. Faith is not the only source of virtue, but if faith is there virtue is supposed to be a consequence. If one claims to be a faithful, but does not have virtue, he shows that he isn't. Thus among the 'faithful', those who don't display morality, aren't. And they need choice to demonstrate whether they are moral, and consequently whether they are faithful. But even the original faith itself requires choice, so choice is required at basically every stage of the process.

[black-dragon]

Do you have anything to add or are you going to troll on the coattails of other people's conversations?

It's hardly a troll. Your tactics thus far have been to ignore or sideline whatever you can't/don't want to refute. This talk of colors is a prime example. The only evidence you should be presenting in a debate is objective evidence. You've admitted that the evidence for free will, like the experience of color, is subjective. But instead of leaving it there and going on to why not having free will is supposedly logically incoherent, you've chosen to go on about colors. Utterly irrelevant. And let me remind you that this is a thread on a public forum, I may comment on whatever responses I like.

[newt]

So God is like one of us setting up a 100% AI hotseat campaign and letting it run to see how it will play out.

I think He needs to work on the AI a bit more. This one never learns from it's mistakes and keeps blockading ports for no reason.

[Tacitursa]

You didn't answer my question: do you or do you not see blue? Prove it. Yes there is a point to this, because all subjective experiences such as free will and perception are not demonstrable. You asked me to "show" how I used my will, and I answered that that's impossible.

Then how do you know free will exists or better yet how do you know other people have free will?

Did the disciples see jesus perform any miracles or not? Prove it. It's a shame christians dont apply the same arguements to there faith.

[strategist.com]

As I'm reading the Bible I can't help but notice some major plot holes in it. Major ones in fact, and since it's one of the best selling books I can't help myself not to point some of them out.

First is the concept of Satan. If god is all knowing and all powerful and nothing is able to impose his will how does Satan exist? You'd think he could get rid of Satan pretty easily since he created the universe and Satan is part of the universe, don't you. What's he waiting for exactly?

Second is dinosaurs. Christians claim that the year is 7,000 years old right? But how come scientists have discovered dinosaur bones that date back millions of years? How do you Christians explain that? I'm having some major problems wrapping my head around that my self.

Anyways, That's just what I think. Feel free to post more Bible plot holes of your own.

Bible shouldn't be taken literally though some ignoramuses believe everything in it. I only take moral lessons from it.

[SigniferOne]

Then how do you know free will exists or better

We know it by experience, just like how we know colors can exist.

yet how do you know other people have free will?

This is the same question as how we know that other people have minds. They seem to act and move in the same way that I do, so it's reasonable to conclude that they have the mental faculties that I do.

Did the disciples see jesus perform any miracles or not? Prove it. It's a shame christians dont apply the same arguements to there faith.

Yes. I've proven it factually several times in other threads by this point, try not to range about too many topics at once.

It's hardly a troll. Your tactics thus far have been to ignore or sideline whatever you can't/don't want to refute. This talk of colors is a prime example. The only evidence you should be presenting in a debate is objective evidence. You've admitted that the evidence for free will, like the experience of color, is subjective. But instead of leaving it there and going on to why not having free will is supposedly logically incoherent, you've chosen to go on about colors.

I wasn't asked about the why yet? Is that so hard to understand?

And let me remind you that this is a thread on a public forum, I may comment on whatever responses I like.

And just like any other public place, it is a place for moral and respectable behavior towards other members. I'm sorry that a Christian had to tell you that, I hope you heed to it.

[Helm]

We know it by experience, just like how we know colors can exist.

But if there was no freewill we would still experience the world just the same as we are experiencing it right now. And colours don't have any objective existence outside of the visual image created within our brain.

[SigniferOne]

But if there was no freewill we would still experience the world just the same as we are experiencing it right now.

No we wouldn't experience the world at all, because everything would be fed to us, even our 'experiences'. What is needed is a self-referential consciousness, that has as its starting point itself. This is the difference that explains why why humans have self-consciousness, and animals do not, seeming to mechanically build the same nests they did for millenia. They do not have a self-referential cause within themselves, which gives grounding to their consciousness. They are sophisticated automatons. We are something categorically different.

[Helm]

No we wouldn't experience the world at all, because everything would be fed to us, even our 'experiences'. What is needed is a self-referential consciousness, that has as its starting point itself. This is the difference for why humans have self-consciousness, and animals do not, seeming to mechanically build the same nests they did for millenia. They do not have a self-referential cause within themselves, which gives grounding to their consciousness. They are sophisticated automatons. We are something categorically different.

We have more self-conciousness than birds and other animals because what we have is much larger and more comlex brain which allows us to think beyond the purely instinctual level, and we gradually evolved our large brains over millions of years, but that's a different subject. Not that I would outright support materialism but it is worth bearing in mind before you try to bring some kind of supernatural properity into the mix.

[black-dragon]

And just like any other public place, it is a place for moral and respectable behavior towards other members. I'm sorry that a Christian had to tell you that, I hope you heed to it.

And what exactly was not 'moral and respectable' about my post? I think that it's quite relevant to a debate if you refuse to even discuss a crucial point. You seem to be more interested in personal attacks. Judging by the content of your posts on other threads in the EMM, this 'moral and respectable behavior' you speak of includes accusations of immorality, misanthropy, violence, stupidity, deceitfulness, trolling, etc. Your arguments are wafer-thin and you know it. But if you keep trying to side-step the issues and pad your paper tiger with rhetorical diversions, then I'm going to call you on it. No amount of cyber bullying will help your case.

We know it by experience, just like how we know colors can exist

But this experience is subjective. Only objective evidence should be used in debate. Otherwise all the religious experiences that people have had would validate all the various religions of the people that experienced them. So this little claim of yours is utterly irrelevant and we are back to square one: what objective evidence do you have that mankind has free will?

This is the same question as how we know that other people have minds. They seem to act and move in the same way that I do, so it's reasonable to conclude that they have the mental faculties that I do.

Your evidence is that they 'act and move' in the same way that you do, therefore you conclude that they have a mind? How is that in any way 'reasonable'? I've mentioned again and again the possibility that everybody besides yourself is a mindless zombie operating on algorithms. There's no empirical difference between beings with free will and beings behaving like they do, even if they don't.

No we wouldn't experience the world at all, because everything would be fed to us, even our 'experiences'. What is needed is a self-referential consciousness, that has as its starting point itself. This is the difference that explains why why humans have self-consciousness, and animals do not, seeming to mechanically build the same nests they did for millenia. They do not have a self-referential cause within themselves, which gives grounding to their consciousness. They are sophisticated automatons. We are something categorically different.

This has been addressed so many times already. You just keep repeating yourself. Now you're not even bothering to substantiate your claims.

Determinism is now incompatible with conscious. Why? You haven't told us.

What exactly is a 'self referential' consciousness and why do we need it? You haven't told us.

Why do you generalize every non-human organism based on the behavior of birds? You haven't told us.

And even if you were right on that, how does that in any way prove that they do not have consciousness? You haven't told us.

[Helm]

To be fair he did say self conscious and most animals don't have that. Some do though, if you give a chimpanzee a mirrior they will recognise they're looking at themself, therefore they are conscious of their self. A something like a dog doesn't have self consiousness because if you show them a mirrior they will think they are looking at another dog and start barking at their reflection.

[Tacitursa]

We know it by experience, just like how we know colors can exist.

Cool, Were finally getting somewhere. Please share your experience with free will and dont say it's impossible again because you just said you know you have it by experience. So which experience or experiences tell you that free will exists.

This is the same question as how we know that other people have minds. They seem to act and move in the same way that I do, so it's reasonable to conclude that they have the mental faculties that I do.

Thats not really an answer is it, Explain how you think people would act and move with no free will.

[basics]

" Thats not really an answer is it, Explain how you think people would act and move with no free will. "

Wizav85,

You're playing with words here. People are either bound to sin or bound to God, each having its boundaries, so in heavenly terms, where is this freewill? Jesus said that people are either for Him or are against Him, the former by regeneration and the latter by sin and the former only comes about if the Father draws them to Him, the latter remaining blind, that's the boundaries. You can't change what you are so where is your will in that?

[Tacitursa]

People are either bound to sin or bound to God

or neither...

[Helm]

or neither...

But not being bound to God is sinful of course.

[SigniferOne]

But this experience is subjective. Only objective evidence should be used in debate.

That's fine, and why I also added that it's logically incoherent to posit an anti-free will statement. That's the objective argument. But if asked how do I know that I have it, I point to my own decision-making processes and invite others to do the same. I cannot share my subjective experiences with other people, but if they occur, then they occur objectively, and are thus true. But the objective proof that I cite is the logical incoherence argument.

Your evidence is that they 'act and move' in the same way that you do, therefore you conclude that they have a mind? How is that in any way 'reasonable'?

If it looks like a duck, moves like a duck, acts like a duck, chances are it is a duck. Sometimes old hackneyed wisdom is the best.

I've mentioned again and again the possibility that everybody besides yourself is a mindless zombie operating on algorithms. There's no empirical difference between beings with free will and beings behaving like they do, even if they don't.

I don't need to prove that other beings have free will. Since it is logically incoherent to posit an anti-free will statement, any being who could posit such a statement could not deny free will. Thus free will could not be denied.

[black-dragon]

If it looks like a duck, moves like a duck, acts like a duck, chances are it is a duck. Sometimes old hackneyed wisdom is the best.

The problem is you're assuming such things imply that it is a duck. This is reasonable when dealing with things such as ducks or tables, whose authenticity we can test and examine. But when we're dealing with free will, we have no way of doing so. Funnily enough, I think that the naturalist worldview provides more reason than the theistic worldview to believe that other beings besides ourselves possess free will. If we are the product of our genes and interaction with the environment, then free will must be an emergent property of these. As there is no soul or spirit, we can conclude that free will comes only from genetics. We then observe that the same genetics that produce free will in ourselves are present in others. Therefore free will is present in others.

That's fine, and why I also added that it's logically incoherent to posit an anti-free will statement. That's the objective argument.

No, that's just an assertion. Arguments have reasons and explanations. I don't see any incoherence, so you'll have to reveal it to me.