JonBoy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by woodyandy
[B]Hey I got an idea.....let's put on a show in the old barn!

Cape Cod

Then you won't be getting a paddle.

chroot

Let me get this straight:

Just because science doesn't have every answer to every question that ever has been asked or ever will be asked, it is no better than religion.

Wait a sec: evidence of science is all around us. There is a preponderence of evidence that indicates science works, is real, and answers questions. That computer you're typing on is an excellent example of science, in myriad forms, all at work. Our understanding of the tides, our understanding of the photoelectric effect, our understanding of apples falling from trees -- we seem to understand those things very well. As I said, there's more evidence of the truth of science than can listed. You also said, at one point, that you also believe most of science. Most of it is just about damned hard to disbelieve.

On the other hand, religion has absolutely no evidence, save for the Bible itself. Religion requires blind faith in its tenants. Religious people recognize this -- and some, like JonBoy, seem to think it's no different from science. God exists in some illogical state, and thousands of years ago handed down a very poorly written book to some herdsmen on a hilltop. He knows all, and can do anything, yet chooses to worry himself with the little monkey-men he made on a tiny speck of a planet in an absolutely absurdly large universe. He made trillions of galaxies stretching tens of billions of light-years away -- and that's just the part we can see! And he's worried about the little monkey-men bowing down to statues on an insignificant little rocky planet in a suburban wing of an insignificant little galaxy. The Creator of the Freaking Universe is concerned with what the monkey-men do with the entrails of a furry quadrupedal animal that they kill sacrificially to show piety. He knows all, and can do anything, yet he chooses only to speak through a book -- a book that's been translated, abridged, edited, and retranslated so many times that now it's only just a book of fables. Which is why I have to laugh when someone brandishes their New American English King James Edition "Fifty Cent Coupon for Paper Towels Inside!" Bible and has the gall to claim it's the direct inerrant word of a diety.

- Warren

ltweintz

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JonBoy
[B]

I get your point (now).

JonBoy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chroot
[B]

Let me get this straight:

Just because science doesn't have every answer to every question that ever has been asked or ever will be asked, it is no better than religion.

Wait a sec: evidence of science is all around us.

magician

A bomb. Your characterization, not mine.

It sounds to me as though your bomb has experienced a hangfire.

Was I condescending? Probably. No more so than you have been in previous posts, however. I apologize; it was inappropriate.

My goal is to get you to think--really think--about whether Nature is consistent. Not to take it as axiomatic, but to analyze it. Could there possibly be a contradiction in Nature? If not, why not? That our logic has an axiom against contradiction isn't relevant, because that logic was developed to accurately model Nature as we believe it to be. Change your view of Nature and your logic will have to change to be an accurate model of your new view of Nature. As long as there are phenomena in Nature we cannot explain, or cannot observe, there is the possibility of contradiction.

As for Ayn Rand, I enjoyed reading "Atlas Shrugged" many years ago, but I'm not sure her philosophical position is sound.

Finally, I talked with a coworker who had what he considers to be a brilliant Philosophy professor in college, and he sent an e-mail to this professor to see if he knows of any acknowledged philosopher who has addressed the idea of consistency in Nature. Unfortunately, my friend says that this professor frequently fails to reply to e-mail, so this investigation may lead nowhere. I talked to another friend who studied Philosophy in school, and he said he'd research the topic. You said that you weren't aware of any philosophers who'd covered it, and I'm not, either, but maybe one of these investigations will bear fruit.

JonBoy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ltweintz
[B]

Please explain to me why taking away the ability to do bad would be taking away free will.

ltweintz

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JonBoy
[B]

Two choices left are either neutrality or good.

JonBoy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ltweintz
[B]

I'll give an example to show why I don't agree with you:

Three aspects: bad, neither bad or good, good
I hit someone = bad
I choose not to hit that person = not bad, but not good either
I walk up and give that person a dollar = good

Two aspects neither bad or good and good (bad was removed by god):
I choose not to hit someone = not bad, but not good either
I walk up and give that person a dollar = good

Just because one aspect is removed, it doesn't change the definition of the other two.

JonBoy

P.S. Yes, I did grasp your meaning - I just thought I'd answer your specific example either way...

Scripturally speaking, you could hold your breath forever and live if it was required of you. That's a different topic altogether, though, and not quite relevant...