I personally don't see anything pretentious about that (feel free to watch till the end to see my point).
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by AlphaStarred
"Free will defines the human being. The human is a reflection of the Divine; just as He acts autonomously, we are free to express ourselves autonomously. That is not true of other created beings - no molecule, animal or planet does anything that breaks the rules of its programmed nature. Only humans are free to choose what they do.
...free will is the consequence of a Divine creation; a creature who reflects God must be free."
From Will, Freedom & Destiny, by Akiva Tatz
What is this... stoned 15 year-old philosophy hour? One would have to be entirely incapable of critical thought to to take such a string of unsubstantiated and assumption laden statements to be of any value.
"Free will defines the human being..." according to whom exactly... it seems to be a woefully insufficient definition to me.
"The human is a reflection of the Divine..." on what exactly (other than human arrogance) do we base that statement... perhaps the lobster is an accurate refection of the divine, after-all, we don't really know what the divine is other than what we have concluded to be based on our own, non-divine, experience. Of course all of that presupposes that there is such a thing as the Divine... a pretty huge and poorly supported supposition.
"no other... does anything that breaks the rules of it's programmed nature..." Is that so? and we know this how, exactly... I guess we have sufficient knowledge to state that we can precisely decode the "programmed nature" of all things, after-all, if we don't have this knowledge then how can we make such a claim? Given that we know the nature of everything I am a tad confused though about why there are so many things that we don't seem to truly understand yet.
"Free will is the consequence of divine creation" Upon what exactly is this statement based? The writer has just argued that only humans have free will; however, pretty much all theological frameworks that argue divine creation also argue that the divine creator created all things... if this is the case then clearly free will is not the consequence of divine creation as only humans have it and the rest of creation is devoid of it... either that or the rest of creation also has free will and therefore there is nothing special about humanity that one could take to be a reflection of this divine creator. Make up your mind which is true, either way the statement from the original writer is not.
What utter horse. Don't get me wrong... god(s) may exist, humans may well be a reflection of god(s), free will may very well be a trait exclusive to humans... fucked if I know, but what I do know is that all of the statements made above are unsupported assumptions that exhibit very little actual thought let alone anything unique or even insightful. This is the type of my buddy would spout off 5 minutes before mistaking the slice of pizza he just dropped on the floor for a parrot at a party back in grade 11. It really isn't worthy of discussion, anyone who thinks it is in anyway thought provoking likely has difficulty arriving at any sort of thought without provocation, and I'm pretty ashamed that I actually took time out to respond to it; however, I'm all about helping people out and you clearly don't understand that you're an idiot so I figured I'd swallow my pride and help you come to that realization.
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by AlphaStarred
I don't see what's necessarily inaccurate about the quote I mentioned, nor presumptuous or enormous, for that matter.
And that's why you're dumb.
I have no interest in going back over this utterly tired and basic philosophical territory. As Woony said earlier, to comprehensively deal with all the enormous begged questions contained within your quoted passage would require writing an entire paper, and it would be a monstrous investment of time and energy to cover things that have been stated umpteen times in intricate detail elsewhere and should be completely familiar to anyone who isn't a teenager.
Silky Johnson
quote:
Originally posted by Sphere City
Reptillians. Nuff said
Yup, ILLUMINATI.
edit: also LOL @ Craig.
AlphaStarred
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
"Free will defines the human being..." according to whom
exactly... it seems to be a woefully insufficient definition to me.
But would you agree that we do, indeed, have free will?
quote:
...after-all, we don't really know what the divine is other than what we have concluded to be based on our own, non-divine, experience.
Absolutely, I don't believe we can know to a full extent what G-d really is, although I believe we can connect and approach a kind of understanding through, what I would consider, "G-dly" acts, such as kindness, good deeds, mercy, helping others, etc.
quote:
"no other... does anything that breaks the rules of it's programmed nature..." Is that so? and we know this how, exactly... I guess we have sufficient knowledge to state that we can precisely decode the "programmed nature" of all things, after-all, if we don't have this knowledge then how can we make such a claim?
Have you ever seen anything non-human act based on lengthy premeditation/pondering?
quote:
Given that we know the nature of everything I am a tad confused though about why there are so many things that we don't seem to truly understand yet.
Yes, and I would personally ascribe this to the "unknown," or G-d, if you will, and the limits of our own minds.
quote:
"Free will is the consequence of divine creation" Upon what exactly is this statement based? The writer has just argued that only humans have free will; however, pretty much all theological frameworks that argue divine creation also argue that the divine creator created all things... if this is the case then clearly free will is not the consequence of divine creation as only humans have it and the rest of creation is devoid of it... either that or the rest of creation also has free will and therefore there is nothing special about humanity that one could take to be a reflection of this divine creator. Make up your mind which is true, either way the statement from the original writer is not.
I don't see the logic behind this. Just because free will can be a consequence of Divine creation, doesn't mean that everything G-d created necessarily has to have free will.
quote:
...and you clearly don't understand that you're an idiot so I figured I'd swallow my pride and help you come to that realization.
I'm an idiot for my beliefs or for starting this topic for discussion? If this topic offends/bothers most people here, I'd be happy to remove it. Makes no difference to me whether we continue or not.
Silky Johnson
Yes, the latter. You're a n00b.
AlphaStarred
For the last time, anyone willing to address my 2 questions: re killers, rapists, thugs, etc. and the Iboga experience, before we continue/conclude this topic?
SYSTEM-J
We get it. Iboga made you a peaceful, positive person. Now, is there a strong psychedelic drug out there used to treat the debilitating psychological condition of not being able to shut the up about iboga?
AlphaStarred
:D
I doubt it. :p
Mr.Mystery
quote:
Originally posted by AlphaStarred
(feel free to watch till the end to see my point).
Somehow I don't see that happening.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by AlphaStarred
I don't see the logic behind this. Just because free will can be a consequence of Divine creation, doesn't mean that everything G-d created necessarily has to have free will.
I'm an idiot for my beliefs or for starting this topic for discussion? If this topic offends/bothers most people here, I'd be happy to remove it. Makes no difference to me whether we continue or not.
I don't think you really get it... the writer's statement is amateur hour at best and one would need to be half brain dead or willfully ignorant to consider it worthy of discussion. Your questions back to me highlight how you've missed the point, especially the last one... the writer didn't say free will was a consequence of divine creation, he said it was THE consequence of divine creation... if it is THE consequence of diving creation than ALL creation must have it, which necessitates that either a) all things have free will and there is nothing special about humanity; subsequently, nothing else the writer has stated means sweet dick all, or b) free will is not the consequence of divine creation thus we can extrapolate nothing about the divine from it; subsequently, nothing else the writer has stated means sweet dick all. Either way the writer has entirely and fatefully contradicted himself and thus is not worthy of further consideration. You are not an idiot for your beliefs, you are an idiot for failing to understand that this particular bit of high school stoner philosophy is unworthy of further consideration.
AlphaStarred
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Your questions back to me highlight how you've missed the point, especially the last one... the writer didn't say free will was a consequence of divine creation, he said it was THE consequence of divine creation... if it is THE consequence of diving creation than ALL creation must have it, which necessitates that either a) all things have free will and there is nothing special about humanity;
The passage begins with "Free will defines the human being..." so I'm pretty sure "the" is only in reference to human beings.
You also haven't answered my question, whether you've ever seen anything non-human act based on lengthy premeditation/pondering?
And, of course, my question regarding killers, etc. (we can leave Iboga out, for now) which I believe is relevant to the topic, as well.
