Chickenpox Lollipops

[Kidlicious]

Well we agree that he attempts to bully. I never said he wasn't educated. Ignorance isn't the same thing as stupidity.

[Aeson]

That doesn't make much sense. In one case you have humans doing human stuff and advancing the species because of their own talents. On the other you have God doing all the good stuff using humans as pawns. Those are radically NOT the same thing.

In both cases you have humans doing human stuff. The only difference is what outside influences are guiding them.

Let's say that some guy knocks up some chick, and the sperm enters the egg, the DNA gets together in such a way that the kid is going to have a 180 IQ. The kid had nothing to do with that, and even the parents didn't choose for the genius, they might not have even chosen for the kid. They just chose to have sex.

Now take the same example, except instead of some natural laws deciding the DNA is such that the kid will have a 180 IQ... God does it somehow. How is that any different in regards to what the kid can achieve in his life?

Or what about some person who chooses to take some drugs. Then while in this altered mental state they see some vision and create an amazing piece of art. Would it matter if the inspiration was from a chemical they put in their body, or from a God who they made contact through by putting a drug in their body (as is the practice in some cultures)? It's the same result either way.

You seem to be romanticizing human actions and pretending they are somehow free of all external inputs so long as there isn't a God. Natural inputs or God could effect the exact same influence on the person, there is no good reason why it would reflect differently on the person who is influenced.

[Hauldren Collider]

Occam's razor, Aeson. You're just assuming that things that we/you don't understand are god (mind alteration, egg fertilization). That's textbook superstition.

[Aeson]

Occam's razor, Aeson. You're just assuming that things that we/you don't understand are god (mind alteration, egg fertilization). That's textbook superstition.

Try to keep up

[Kidlicious]

He can't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I never said it was JUST God. I acknowledge true greatness, and I never said Michaelangelo wasn't a great painter.

Btw, Those great people you mentioned never claimed sole credit for their greatness, but gave God credit for being truly great.

Whoa. Kid said something I agree with!

I don't why people want to break things down into a dichotomy. It doesn't have to be JUST A or JUST B (as in this case or, say, God & science). One can acknowledge the greatest of an artist while also acknowledging God's Spirit being there in the background.

[Elok]

Occam's razor, Aeson. You're just assuming that things that we/you don't understand are god (mind alteration, egg fertilization). That's textbook superstition.

He said nothing of the sort--his post explicitly distinguishes between "it's all nature" and "God intervenes."

[Aeson]

I'm not sure if Elok is referencing the right "distinguish". While I obviously do distinguish between the two personally, my actual point is there is nothing to distinguish the two hypothetical influences in regards to the subject matter I was addressing. It's irrelevant which outside source the influence comes from in regards to how we view a person's achievements. (There are of course other areas where it does matter, just not this way.)

[Elok]

Yeah, I got you. It's not that hard of a point to follow, honest.

[The Mad Monk]

Oh, and if anybody else wants to offer their opinion of Satan's character in PL, I'd be interested in that too.

Start Here.

[BlackCat]

In both cases you have humans doing human stuff. The only difference is what outside influences are guiding them.

Let's say that some guy knocks up some chick, and the sperm enters the egg, the DNA gets together in such a way that the kid is going to have a 180 IQ. The kid had nothing to do with that, and even the parents didn't choose for the genius, they might not have even chosen for the kid. They just chose to have sex.

Now take the same example, except instead of some natural laws deciding the DNA is such that the kid will have a 180 IQ... God does it somehow. How is that any different in regards to what the kid can achieve in his life?

Or what about some person who chooses to take some drugs. Then while in this altered mental state they see some vision and create an amazing piece of art. Would it matter if the inspiration was from a chemical they put in their body, or from a God who they made contact through by putting a drug in their body (as is the practice in some cultures)? It's the same result either way.

You seem to be romanticizing human actions and pretending they are somehow free of all external inputs so long as there isn't a God. Natural inputs or God could effect the exact same influence on the person, there is no good reason why it would reflect differently on the person who is influenced.

There are big differences in your examples. In one case randomness makes things happen, in other some external deity bends the rules and provoke an explicit result. That is two different things.

[Elok]

I believe he's saying that, from a human perspective, it hardly matters; in either case, the outcome is largely due to events beyond your control, like being born rich, or with great intelligence or talent, or having your innate talent shaped by the events of your life to produce a specific expression (I don't know what the hell made Hieronymus Bosch express himself that way, but I know there are tons of psychiatrists who'd love to find out). Now, this is not the case for really strict Calvinists who think God controls every single thing directly, so that, say, Michael Jordan didn't even choose to harness his natural talents with continual training, it was God dragging him around the whole time. But as Kid and Imran noted, very few people actually believe that.

[Aeson]

It's also not the case for really strict determinists or causalists or whatever you'd call them.

[Aeson]

I'd also point out that it's not randomness that makes things happen in the one case. Randomness would have to be a whole other hypothetical.

[BlackCat]

I believe he's saying that, from a human perspective, it hardly matters; in either case, the outcome is largely due to events beyond your control, like being born rich, or with great intelligence or talent, or having your innate talent shaped by the events of your life to produce a specific expression (I don't know what the hell made Hieronymus Bosch express himself that way, but I know there are tons of psychiatrists who'd love to find out). Now, this is not the case for really strict Calvinists who think God controls every single thing directly, so that, say, Michael Jordan didn't even choose to harness his natural talents with continual training, it was God dragging him around the whole time. But as Kid and Imran noted, very few people actually believe that.

Yep, that may be what he's saying, but I don't buy it. One thing is that something in the past can lead to a certain point, but there is a difference if you at this point chooses A or B volonterly or are dictated to choose a specific.

Actually quite strange to watch Matrix - Reloaded while discussing this