The Adamic Problem
- Thread starter trofimus
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Both legs of the dilemma can be argued and refuted.
If both legs of the dilemma can be argued and refuted, then we're simply left with no dilemma at all... long before I go to the trouble of actually splitting the dilemma.
And then you need to remember that in order split the dilemma, and break it, I'm not actually obligated to refute or prove anything; I only have to show a third option which is feasible.
This dilemma just constitutes an "interesting" argument, not a logically compelling argument.
...
If both legs of the dilemma can be argued and refuted, then we're simply left with no dilemma at all... long before I go to the trouble of actually splitting the dilemma.
And then you need to remember that in order split the dilemma, and break it, I'm not actually obligated to refute or prove anything; I only have to show a third option which is feasible.
This dilemma just constitutes an "interesting" argument, not a logically compelling argument.
...
-
2
- Show all
1. Define the term "sin freely."
2. Define the term "foreseen."
3. Next, map out the rationale, or process, whereby you believe "sinning freely" leads to the conclusion that the fall could not be foreseen.
4. If you define your terms, and then explain the particular process you want to use to reach your conclusion... then I'll come back later and knock it down.
We must be really bored today.
...
-
3
- Show all
1. Define the term "sin freely."
2. Define the term "foreseen."
3. Next, map out the rationale, or process, whereby you believe "sinning freely" leads to the conclusion that the fall could not be foreseen.
4. If you define your terms, and then explain the particular process you want to use to reach your conclusion... then I'll come back later and knock it down.
We must be really bored today.
...
2. Define the term "foreseen."
3. Next, map out the rationale, or process, whereby you believe "sinning freely" leads to the conclusion that the fall could not be foreseen.
4. If you define your terms, and then explain the particular process you want to use to reach your conclusion... then I'll come back later and knock it down.
We must be really bored today.
...
Foreseen - to know it before it happens
If Adam sinned freely, i.e. without predetermination, his action was not predictable, therefore could not be foreseen
----
These are not my terms, these are terms used by Pierre Bayle in his Dictionnaire historique et critique, but everybody who has some interest in this area of theology should be able to understand them.
Why did you say it can be refuted and argued when you did not know what it means?
1. This only works if you assume that God is ONLY ABLE to foresee because he first predetermines... thus he has NO KNOWLEDGE of anything unless it is something he has predeterimined.
- In this line of reasoning, God's predeterminism comes first, before his foreknowing.
- Thus God only SEES INTO THE FUTURE because he knows his own plans... and by this logic, we could even postulate that he doesn't really see the future at all; he simply has awareness of his own plans.
2. There is no logical reason to make this assumption, that God only foresees what he has first predetermined... that predetermining causes his foreknowing.
3. There is no logical reason to assume foreknowing only means foreknowing if there is first a sizable helping of predeterminism to create the foreknowing.
4. Just doesn't work. There is no logical necessity for the foreknowing of an omniscient being to be caused by anything at all.
5. If a divine being is omniscient, and knows all, then he simply knows all. We have no logical grounds to state he only knows all because he first predetermined all.
6. Reiterate: We have no logical grounds to affirm his foreknowing can only exist if it is caused by something else.
This would actually diminish his property of omniscience, and lessen it to a mere contingent property... it would no longer be a necessary property as it would be contingent on something else.
This would greatly diminish his divine and necessary property of omniscience.
7. Furthermore, we can go to scripture and make a case against this.
There are other arguments to be made against this first leg, before we even move on to the other leg, or before we discus the way these two legs sit in antithesis... but we don't require a multiplicity of arguments to break a false dilemma.
All we need is one "feasible" alternative to break a dilemma.
...
- In this line of reasoning, God's predeterminism comes first, before his foreknowing.
- Thus God only SEES INTO THE FUTURE because he knows his own plans... and by this logic, we could even postulate that he doesn't really see the future at all; he simply has awareness of his own plans.
2. There is no logical reason to make this assumption, that God only foresees what he has first predetermined... that predetermining causes his foreknowing.
3. There is no logical reason to assume foreknowing only means foreknowing if there is first a sizable helping of predeterminism to create the foreknowing.
4. Just doesn't work. There is no logical necessity for the foreknowing of an omniscient being to be caused by anything at all.
5. If a divine being is omniscient, and knows all, then he simply knows all. We have no logical grounds to state he only knows all because he first predetermined all.
6. Reiterate: We have no logical grounds to affirm his foreknowing can only exist if it is caused by something else.
This would actually diminish his property of omniscience, and lessen it to a mere contingent property... it would no longer be a necessary property as it would be contingent on something else.
This would greatly diminish his divine and necessary property of omniscience.
7. Furthermore, we can go to scripture and make a case against this.
There are other arguments to be made against this first leg, before we even move on to the other leg, or before we discus the way these two legs sit in antithesis... but we don't require a multiplicity of arguments to break a false dilemma.
All we need is one "feasible" alternative to break a dilemma.
...
-
2
-
1
- Show all
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr...Critique/RK=2/RS=E9Tv7J56MveZD49HqHLbRgJ4AcQ-
Old Pierre was a Huguenot............and not well received within his own circles..........he also liked to play mind games with all this stuff.
EXCERPT
The overwhelming majority of the entries were devoted to individual people, whether historical or mythical, but some articles treated religious beliefs and philosophies.[3] Many of the more controversial ideas in the book were hidden away in the voluminous footnotes, or they were slipped into articles on seemingly uncontroversial topics.
Old Pierre himself was a conundrum of emotions
EXCERPT
The rigor and skeptical approach demonstrated in the Dictionary influenced many thinkers of the Enlightenment, including Denis Diderotand the other Encyclopédistes, David Hume, and George Berkeley. Bayle delighted in pointing out contradictions between theological tenets and the supposedly self-evident dictates of reason. He used the evidence of the irrationality of Christianity to emphasize that the basis of Christianity is faith in God and divine revelation. But at the same time He sought to promote religious tolerance, and argued strongly against inflexible and authoritarian application of religious articles of faith.[4][5] This led to a bitter argument with his fellow French Protestant Pierre Jurieu.
Choose who you wish to believe........as for me and my house, We believe the Word of God
Old Pierre was a Huguenot............and not well received within his own circles..........he also liked to play mind games with all this stuff.
EXCERPT
The overwhelming majority of the entries were devoted to individual people, whether historical or mythical, but some articles treated religious beliefs and philosophies.[3] Many of the more controversial ideas in the book were hidden away in the voluminous footnotes, or they were slipped into articles on seemingly uncontroversial topics.
Old Pierre himself was a conundrum of emotions
EXCERPT
The rigor and skeptical approach demonstrated in the Dictionary influenced many thinkers of the Enlightenment, including Denis Diderotand the other Encyclopédistes, David Hume, and George Berkeley. Bayle delighted in pointing out contradictions between theological tenets and the supposedly self-evident dictates of reason. He used the evidence of the irrationality of Christianity to emphasize that the basis of Christianity is faith in God and divine revelation. But at the same time He sought to promote religious tolerance, and argued strongly against inflexible and authoritarian application of religious articles of faith.[4][5] This led to a bitter argument with his fellow French Protestant Pierre Jurieu.
Choose who you wish to believe........as for me and my house, We believe the Word of God
-
1
- Show all
