tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5276466628050151031..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Freakasaurus, One Million Years B.C.Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-75034634286190650072009-09-17T17:31:37.154-04:002009-09-17T17:31:37.154-04:00I believe we've now discovered a working examp...<i>I believe we've now discovered a working example of hubris. </i><br /><br />Actually, A Helmet reminds me a lot of a friend I once had, in South Africa, when I was about 15. He was always very imaginative and prone to exaggeration. But he started to act strangely. One day he finally divulged to me that he had been recruited by the CIA. They had been so impressed by his ambiguous skills that they had sent someone from America to sign him on. I wanted to believe him. But after a couple of weeks, as his raving become more openly delusional, I was forced to conclude that mental illness was the more likely explanation. Eventually he dropped off the radar. Could be he moved to America to help on Sekret Swwl intelligence operations. Maybe that's where he thinks he is. But it's still probably a padded room in reality.Dominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67781347714315156452009-09-17T16:36:30.150-04:002009-09-17T16:36:30.150-04:00A helmet,
I need to move on but I appreciate the t...A helmet,<br />I need to move on but I appreciate the time you have spent with me. I look forward to reading your book some day and wish you well on that endeavor. Just as a parting admonition, I would encourage you to try harder to understand the position you oppose. You ought to be able to state it in such a way that you opponent can say, “Yes, that is what I believe.” Thus far I have not been able to say that of the things you have written against reformed theology. That is not to say you don’t have legitimate concerns, but it is hard for me to understand your concerns accurately when I can’t recognize my own position in your words.<br />God BlessBretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914126628566132517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3487729767065541302009-09-17T16:05:01.485-04:002009-09-17T16:05:01.485-04:00I need to proof read better! Forget about the &quo...I need to proof read better! Forget about the "Evil exists" part. I started going further down the path of the different approaches to dualism we have covered so far but thoughts better of it.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914126628566132517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41184705750592597702009-09-17T15:59:54.144-04:002009-09-17T15:59:54.144-04:00Yes, I read your post.
"But my book is actual...Yes, I read your post.<br />"<i>But my book is actually not on a certain theory, but it is itself the key to the solution of the problem of evil.</i>"<br />That is a bit presumptive. All theodicies posit themselves as the solution to the problem of evil. Your’s will be just one more theory. It is presumptive to call it the solution when it has never even been presented for critique. <br />The password analogy is actually a better analogy for what you are trying to convey. I don’t know how many pages your book is (will be) but if it actually as involved and non-compromising as a 200 page DNA sequence, that is difficult to take seriously. Although Peter Pike could Probably better speak to Fermat’s Last Theorm, but even that can be represented in a reduced form. The proof builds on previous proofs. To state it from beginning end may be quite involved, but there is often no need for it. If I accept Ribert’s theorem along with Wiles proof of the modularity theorem then I have my proof for Fermat’s Last Theorem. Then each of those proofs presuppose certain other mathematical truths. Not every step needs to be proven, much of it can simply be agreed upon. <br />Unless, of course, your theory does not build one iota on previous theodicies such that your’s is 100% original in every detail. But then again that too would be difficult to believe. Even so, what you do have could be submitted for examination. Grace would have to be extended for the portions of the key which have not yet been ground. A full unlocking is not yet possible. Ok. That is fine. But for each pin that you that you have successfully accounted for, we could read and understand that much. <br />"<i>Are you referring to that:<br />'That involves a very compartmentalized view of reality, with two ultimate, independent, opposing principles.'</i>"<br />Yes. Specifically the "independent" qualification. That seemed to be Steve's point. Evil exists. <br />Was the crucifixion of Christ evil or good?Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914126628566132517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61351187453107247842009-09-17T15:45:28.644-04:002009-09-17T15:45:28.644-04:00Brett,
I'm not sure which distinction you mea...Brett,<br /><br />I'm not sure which distinction you mean that I'm overlooking though I cited it myself. Are you referring to that:<br /><br /><i>That involves a very compartmentalized view of reality, with two ultimate, independent, opposing principles.</i><br /><br />?<br /><br />If so, what am I overlooking here? Is God's creation in opposition to God?a helmethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159557031242847451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7355860943457245342009-09-17T15:44:35.097-04:002009-09-17T15:44:35.097-04:00I believe we've now discovered a working examp...I believe we've now discovered a working example of hubris.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86479682525050161692009-09-17T14:56:09.573-04:002009-09-17T14:56:09.573-04:00Brett,
did you read my post? It seems you don'...Brett,<br /><br />did you read my post? It seems you don't understand what I am saying there.<br /><br /><i>Remarkably, a one page paper can be written to explain a particular theory.</i><br /><br />Please notice, my book is actually not about a particular theory! What do I mean with that?<br /><br />For instance, there is the particular theory called "Greater Good Defense". You can write a book <b>about that theory</b>. There is the theory "Free Will Defense". Now one could go and write a book about that theory. Or there is the theory that might be called "Necessary Opposite Theory". One could write a paper about that theory as well.<br />Or there is the theory of relativity. Of course you could write a book whose subject is that theory.<br /><br />But my book is actually not <b>on</b> a certain theory, but it is <b>itself the key</b> to the solution of the problem of evil. In other words, the very solution is <b>the reading of the words of the book</b>. <br /><br />Again, please see the cylinder lock analogy and how this is compared to my book. The book <b>IS</b> the "theory" itself! It is not <b>about</b> a theory, it is not written <b>on</b> theory A,B or C! No, the book itself is the <b>key</b>. <br /><br />Please be sure to understand what I mean. You cannot give a "summary" of a password! Either you have the complete, correct password, with all characters in the right order and no character missing-- or you can forget it.<br /><br />Likewise, it is useless to provide a sketch of a key profile. Either you explain the key exactly, with every detail, or it doesn't help at all.<br /><br /><i> Einstein once said that if you cannot explain something simply, then you simply don’t understand it. </i><br /><br />The book is simple! The reading goes simple and smooth like a fitting key! But unless you insert the long key into the lock, you cannot unlock. By the way, the mathematical proof of Fermat's Last Theorem comprises about 100 pages. I don't think you could provide a summary or something like that on a page or two. This holds true for many, many complex theories! So what you're saying that anything fits on one page is absolutely wrong. So just because you can explain something (and understand it) doesn't mean you can pack everythng into an easy, short slogan. <br /><br />Suppose this were your password:<br /><br />_kris&4dorf<br /><br />Now, would you be able to provide a "summarizing description" of this password, so that it would be of any use to others? So that they could sort of access your computer as well? Of course not. That's what I'm saying in this post and that's why I wrote it. (BTW, the password isn't mine....:-))<br /><br />Sorry, no simple slogans possible!<br /><br />-a helmeta helmethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159557031242847451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2414235779750417482009-09-17T14:29:14.199-04:002009-09-17T14:29:14.199-04:00Oops. please read that as "distinction."...Oops. please read that as "distinction."Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914126628566132517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47679977138100544792009-09-17T14:27:47.293-04:002009-09-17T14:27:47.293-04:00I wish I had more time for this!
I'll just ref...I wish I had more time for this!<br />I'll just refer you a third time to the diction that was made in the original article which you keep overlooking. You even quoted it in your first comment.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914126628566132517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85162467711052951122009-09-17T14:24:24.146-04:002009-09-17T14:24:24.146-04:00Was the crucifixion of Christ good or evil?Was the crucifixion of Christ good or evil?Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914126628566132517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37763318062461829592009-09-17T14:22:28.775-04:002009-09-17T14:22:28.775-04:00Regarding your book:
Quantum mechanics is a comple...Regarding your book:<br />Quantum mechanics is a complex and highly technical field. Many books have been written on the subject expounding different theories to resolve the many issues in quantum mechanics. Even so, summaries are still possible. Remarkably, a one page paper can be written to explain a particular theory. This is not the same as an exhaustive proof, but it can be distilled. Einstein once said that if you cannot explain something simply, then you simply don’t understand it. Incidentally the theory of relativity is not easysolutionism. It is elegant, but not easy. <br />I think your inability to say anything of your theory in less than 200 pages reveals that you simply do not understand it yet.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914126628566132517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38094477781198379112009-09-17T14:22:09.021-04:002009-09-17T14:22:09.021-04:00Hello Brett,
this dualism discussion was motivat...Hello Brett,<br /><br /><br />this dualism discussion was motivated by the comparison of arminianism with manichaeism. Manichaeism is a a dualism between opposing forces, namely light and darkness, which transfered to arminianism, would mean good and evil. Yin and Yang are dualism. So is Manichaeism and any conflict between mutually exclusive forces.<br /><br />Now, of course man was made in thei image of God and found good. If you say there is some dualism between God and his creation in christianity, well go for it. But the manichaen dualism that Steve Hays tried to set arminianism equal with, is between <b>good</b> and <b>evil</b>, opposing, mutually conflicting poles. God isn't principially in conflict with his creation. But good is principially in conflict with evil.<br />That's a dualism you can neither apply to arminianism nor to authentic christianity in general.<br /><br />-a helmeta helmethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159557031242847451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78477371203051919392009-09-17T14:05:17.891-04:002009-09-17T14:05:17.891-04:00a helmet,thanks for your response.
Initially you s...a helmet,thanks for your response.<br />Initially you said, "<i>There are God and "non-God" as necessary forces to realize the greater good.</i>" After a bit of back and forth you acknowledge, "<i>Yes, ontological creativity seems to be an attribute of God and creation is even said to be a revelation of God's glory.</i>"<br />Thus according to your logic, creation is a necessary non-God entity. If a necessary non-God entity is a basic definition of dualism, then that fits with creation as well as evil. If you don't want to acknowledge that Christianity (via the doctrine of creation) entails dualism, then you need to also drop the charge against the Greater Good defense.<br />Nobody is saying [mercy] is the reason [for sin].<br />"<i>Yes, the greater good defense is saying this.</i>"<br />No. It isn't.<br />Suppose that I have the ability to throw a football 60 yards. Suppose that I want to impress my son with that ability. So I subsequently toss the football 60 yards. This begets a "Wow dad! That was great!"<br />You would say of this that, "Admiration is a response to a 60 yard toss, not its reason!" To which I reply, "True. His admiration was a response of my toss, not its cause. There is no backward causation here. However, my desire for that admiration was why I tossed it in the first place. Thus it flows like this:<br />My desire for X --> create conditions necessary for X --> X occurs in response to these conditions. It was not admiration itself, but the desire for it that was the reason for the 60 yard toss.<br />You have no alternative and the greater good does hold water. You should embrace it.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914126628566132517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4874889405170854062009-09-17T13:28:34.891-04:002009-09-17T13:28:34.891-04:00Could you give us a glimpse of how you solve it?
...<i>Could you give us a glimpse of how you solve it?</i><br /><br />Unfortunately, I cannot give you a glimpse of how I solve it, and in order to explain why, I just posted an explanation on the blog<br /><br />combatingcalvinism.blogspot.com<br /><br />I've been asked this several times now, so I wrote that article. Please, see for yourself!<br /><br />-a helmeta helmethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159557031242847451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66881838782064804792009-09-17T10:41:37.521-04:002009-09-17T10:41:37.521-04:00a helmet,
Could you give us a glimpse of how you ...a helmet,<br /><br />Could you give us a glimpse of how you solve it?<br /><br />You said you are working on a book, but surely you could throw us a bone. Anything that we can work with here. <br /><br />OMT, both Calvinism and Arminianism use the greater good defense yet I've yet see you tell the Arminian to abondon his views, why?Mitchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362366468793301910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8491234974359622112009-09-17T10:25:36.484-04:002009-09-17T10:25:36.484-04:00Hello AP,
Calvinists don't deny that man'...Hello AP,<br /><br /><i>Calvinists don't deny that man's guilt is genuine.</i><br /><br />And theodicy indeed demands an explanation why/how man's guilt is genuine in face of a sovereign, almighty, all-loving God. <br /><br /><i>You can disagree with Calvinism and state that Calvinists are being inconsistent in claiming that man's guilt is genuine even though ordained by God;</i><br /><br />I do. In fact, here's a problem. How is culpability real, if even human thoughts have their origin in God? Can man think thoughts that have never been thought before? Can he have ex nihilo thoughts? According to the doctrine of exhaustive determinism, the answer is no. So the question of genuine culpability stays.<br /><br /><i>but it would help if you attempted to show by argumentation how we're being inconsistent in our claims rather than merely asserting it.</i><br /><br />I just did.<br /><br />You should forsake the doctrines of grace.<br /><br />-a helmeta helmethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159557031242847451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67011476408940891422009-09-17T10:16:48.040-04:002009-09-17T10:16:48.040-04:00Dominic,
I was following Brett's differentiat...Dominic,<br /><br />I was following Brett's differentiation between metaphysical and logical necessity and adopted the terms.<br /><br /><i>God is ontologically a merciful God.<br />God is onlotogically a creative God.</i><br /> <br />I added the phrase "ontologically evil". And I understand what Brett means. Perhaps you don't. <br /><br />:-)<br /><br />-a helmeta helmethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159557031242847451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20425449468841359752009-09-17T10:10:18.517-04:002009-09-17T10:10:18.517-04:00Hello Brett,
Ontological creativity includes onto...Hello Brett,<br /><br /><i>Ontological creativity includes ontological creation. Dualism according to your logic.</i><br /><br />As said before, God's creation was very good, not evil at all. Yes, ontological creativity seems to be an attribute of God and creation is even said to be a revelation of God's glory. Glory however, is the radiation of one's essence, a self-revelation. Creation bears witness of God. Yet this creation was made good. Evil in any form isn't ontological in God. God's creation testifies of God. Evil does not. God's creation displays God's power. Evil does not. God's creation displays God's goodness. Evil does not.<br /><br />Neither is God the origin of actual evil, nor of the idea thereof.<br /><br /><br /><i>Nobody is saying [mercy] is the reason [for sin].</i><br /><br />Yes, the greater good defense is saying this. Like this:<br /><br />-Why is there sin? <br />-Because mercy (and justice) shall be exhibited. <br /><br />The reason for the existence of sin is the greater good: mercy and justice demonstrated.<br /><br />The greater good defense is a holey pail. It doesn't hold water. You should abandon it!<br /><br />-a helmeta helmethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159557031242847451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78586926580736508582009-09-17T01:50:34.990-04:002009-09-17T01:50:34.990-04:00A Helmet said:
Nowhere does the bible suggest a g...A Helmet said: <br /><i>Nowhere does the bible suggest a good outcome of evil. That's why you have to be saved from evil, because it won't ever turn into good. You keep portraying God as a theatre player and have no idea about the genuineness of sin and its genuinely punishable essence. If evil served a greater good, it would be good!--simple. The bible however, knows of no bad tree with bad fruit that changes to produce good fruit.</i><br /><br />A Helmet, you seem to be confusing what Calvinists believe about how God can bring about good FROM (allowing, permitting, yes even ordaining) evil, and God turning evil INTO good (which we deny). Good remains good and evil remains evil. Please represent our position accurately.<br /><br />Also, Calvinists don't deny that man's guilt is genuine. You can disagree with Calvinism and state that Calvinists are being inconsistent in claiming that man's guilt is genuine even though ordained by God; but it would help if you attempted to show by argumentation how we're being inconsistent in our claims rather than merely asserting it.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60894847479113978662009-09-16T17:55:12.655-04:002009-09-16T17:55:12.655-04:00Note, if God is ontologically merciful, then the n...<i>Note, if God is ontologically merciful, then the next question is, what the mere concept of mercy means. It means unmerited favor towards evil. So the ontological mercy includes ontological evil.</i><br /><br />I'm fascinated—absolutely <em>fascinated</em>—to learn what "ontological evil" is. A Helmet, ironically, sounds like a Gnostic rather than a Christian.Dominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11115858855460186412009-09-16T16:25:23.458-04:002009-09-16T16:25:23.458-04:00"Well, if arminianism is dualism like Manicha..."<i>Well, if arminianism is dualism like Manichaeism, then calvinism is dualism in a similar sense. </i>"<br />All you’re doing is restating your initial accusation without taking into account the distinction made in the original post (which was subsequently pointed out to you in the commets). You need to either address that distinction, modify our accusation, or stop bringing it up.<br />"<i>So the ontological mercy includes ontological evil.</i>"<br />Ontological creativity includes ontological creation. Dualism according to your logic.<br />“<i>If mercy/justice/wrath are ontologically preserved in God, so is evil.</i>”<br />This does not follow because if creativity is ontologically preserved in God, so is creation. Hence creation is eternal – dualism.<br />“<i>Thus, the revelation of God's fulness hinges on evil, here's the dualistic nature of the Greater Good Defense.</i>”<br />Thus, the revelation of God's fullness hinges on creation, here's the dualistic nature of the Christianity.<br />“<i>The Greater Good Defense owes the world the explaination how this mercy and justice, and their basis, the culpability, are in any way *real*.</i>” <br />This is a different objection from the one we were discussing<br />“<i>The mere concept of evil isn't even part of God. </i>”<br />Did God have no concept of evil until it happened? Was he surprised? Did he learn something in that moment? Or does God still have no concept of evil?<br />“<i>Yet the mere concept of mercy includes the concept of evil. Mercy is a response to sin, not its reason! </i>”<br />Nobody is saying it is the reason.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914126628566132517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30669964909924213052009-09-16T14:26:43.818-04:002009-09-16T14:26:43.818-04:00Addition:
The mere concept of evil isn't even...Addition:<br /><br />The mere concept of evil isn't even part of God. Yet the mere concept of mercy includes the concept of evil. Mercy is a response to sin, not its reason!a helmethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159557031242847451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56130307075403442172009-09-16T14:19:10.149-04:002009-09-16T14:19:10.149-04:00Well, if arminianism is dualism like Manichaeism, ...Well, if arminianism is dualism like Manichaeism, then calvinism is dualism in a similar sense.<br /><br />Note, if God is ontologically merciful, then the next question is, what the mere concept of mercy means. It means unmerited favor towards <b>evil</b>. So the ontological mercy includes ontological evil. You cannot think of mercy without thinking of evil. The (ontological)nature of of mercy includes the nature of evil.<br /><br />The same holds true for the ontology of justice and wrath. If mercy/justice/wrath are ontologically preserved in God, so is evil. Now, can the almighty God fully demonstrate his innate (ontological) attributes? -- Not without evil. Thus, the revelation of God's fulness hinges on evil, <b>here's the dualistic nature</b> of the Greater Good Defense. <br /><br />Now, in order for God's mercy and justice to be genuine, the underlying human guilt must be genuine. Yet the greater good defense puts the cart before the horse. There's sin in order to respond to it, either mercifully or angry. <br /><br />The Greater Good Defense owes the world the explaination <b>how</b> this mercy and justice, and their basis, the culpability, are in any way *real*. <br /><br />-a helmeta helmethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159557031242847451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9966949947897074462009-09-16T13:50:10.430-04:002009-09-16T13:50:10.430-04:00You are changing the discussion. We were discussin...You are changing the discussion. We were discussing your charge of dualism, not culpability.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914126628566132517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74441320370521420922009-09-16T13:46:18.568-04:002009-09-16T13:46:18.568-04:00"If evil served a greater good, it would be g..."<i>If evil served a greater good, it would be good!--simple.</i>"<br />No it wouldn’t. Saying it is so does not make it so. This very point has been addressed many times on this blog alone, and yet, without resolving the counterpoints, you keep raising it unmodified.<br />Was the crucifixion of Christ a good or bad thing?Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914126628566132517noreply@blogger.com