Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Marcus]

Free will and moral agency is an anathema to non believers.

Prevarication again. Most here, for instance, are non believers. Most believe in some degree of free will. Which is what you've said you believe: free will with some constraints. But you know all that and are lying about it...

That's what is so disingenuous. In spite of all people have said he still just defaults to derogatory stereotyping. Every single time.

[drumdude]

Just to get it straight. You don’t believe in God in the first place, right?

How can you judge a God you don’t believe in?

More importantly than that, how can you deign to make a decision that is only in God’s hands (if you believed in the first place)?

You keep saying the God character that you believe in is incapable of X, Y, and Z. When I show evidence that, actually, this character is capable of it, you change the subject.

If you tell me Harry Potter can't use dark magic, and I show you where in the canonical book he can use dark magic, your argument "well you don't believe Harry Potter is real" doesn't make a lot of sense.

I don't understand your other question, I'm only talking about God changing people's hearts which to me means he is capable of interfering with free will whenever he chooses.

[Gadianton]

If a child dies before the age of accountability there has to be some kind of fail safe, doesn’t there

You're losing sight of your own project. But thanks for pulling your gun and shooting your foot quickly so I can stop begging.

The Mormon God (the term used here) is a God that fits in pretty dang well with what we see ‘on the ground’.

Apparently not, because you need an epic failsafe that can't be seen "from the ground."

You want to say that the Mormon God makes so much sense because he allows people to get rough on the playground, make mistakes, and move on and be better for it. Hey man, get out there and skin your knee up and learn to ride that skateboard. You want to believe that non-believers can't handle this, that non-believers would prevent anyone from risking skinning their knees. They can't handle your intense God. That's not true at all. It's an easy point to grasp. There is a small slice of the world where this explanation would more or less make sense with what we see on the ground. In the skateboard analogy, I can accept the risk of skinning up a knee or even death. However, if the point is to come to earth to learn to ride the board, then it makes no sense when half the population dies before they are big enough to try. On the ground, we see most people dying before getting the chance to ride the board, and so the explanation makes no sense.

Yes, you have a failsafe. The point of a failsafe is to have a great plan that makes lots of sense, but on that 1% chance where something goes wrong, the failsafe kicks in. With Mormonism, "learning to ride the skateboard" only makes sense for a very small slice of what we see in the world, and to make up for the rest, innumerable failsafes are invented. 1/2 of humans born get the Celestial kingdom without a mortal test, according to James Talmage in Jesus the Christ. Parents can raise their children who died in the Millennium. Children born mentally handicap were key in driving out Satan during the war in heaven, and it would have been unfair to give them full faculties because Satan wouldn't have let them alone for an instant. Dan Peterson can't even say for sure Hitler got an adequate chance learn to ride the skateboard of mortality. The problem is, the fair test to ride a skateboard and take the risk to do it could make sense in principle, but most of what we see in reality, on the ground, doesn't fit well with that explanation. It's an endless web of qualifications and failsafes.

[MG 2.0]

Just to get it straight. You don’t believe in God in the first place, right?

How can you judge a God you don’t believe in?

More importantly than that, how can you deign to make a decision that is only in God’s hands (if you believed in the first place)?

You keep saying the God character that you believe in is incapable of X, Y, and Z. When I show evidence that, actually, this character is capable of it, you change the subject.

What is X, Y, and Z?

If you tell me Harry Potter can't use dark magic, and I show you where in the canonical book he can use dark magic, your argument "well you don't believe Harry Potter is real" doesn't make a lot of sense.

But it does. Rowling wrote a book of fiction. I think she may have even stated the fact.

I don't understand your other question, I'm only talking about God changing people's hearts which to me means he is capable of interfering with free will whenever he chooses.

People have to come to God and knock. It is only then that He can change hearts. He doesn’t interfere with free will..

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

In spite of all people have said he still just defaults to derogatory stereotyping. Every single time.

What is it that all people have said that would cause you to think that when I say that free will seems to be somewhat of an anathema among those non religious people that don’t believe in God? Would you say that a majority of people that don’t believe in God believe that we have free will?

If that is so, it would surprise me. Of course in saying this (using the word anathema) I am mainly referring to those that I am communicating with on this board.

If I am wrong and that a majority people that are not religious do believe in moral agency and free will I will change my point of view. I’ve done so before.

By the way, talking about stereotyping. That isn’t ever done in regards to nonbelievers stereotyping Mormons, right? That never happens here.

And if it did, it would be called out I’m sure.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

If a child dies before the age of accountability there has to be some kind of fail safe, doesn’t there

You're losing sight of your own project. But thanks for pulling your gun and shooting your foot quickly so I can stop begging.

Oh, that is if there is a loving God. No loving God? Then it really doesn’t matter in the whole scheme of things.

The Mormon God (the term used here) is a God that fits in pretty dang well with what we see ‘on the ground’.

Apparently not, because you need an epic failsafe that can't be seen "from the ground."

You want to say that the Mormon God makes so much sense because he allows people to get rough on the playground, make mistakes, and move on and be better for it. Hey man, get out there and skin your knee up and learn to ride that skateboard. You want to believe that non-believers can't handle this, that non-believers would prevent anyone from risking skinning their knees. They can't handle your intense God. That's not true at all. It's an easy point to grasp. There is a small slice of the world where this explanation would more or less make sense with what we see on the ground. In the skateboard analogy, I can accept the risk of skinning up a knee or even death. However, if the point is to come to earth to learn to ride the board, then it makes no sense when half the population dies before they are big enough to try. On the ground, we see most people dying before getting the chance to ride the board, and so the explanation makes no sense.

Yes, you have a failsafe. The point of a failsafe is to have a great plan that makes lots of sense, but on that 1% chance where something goes wrong, the failsafe kicks in. With Mormonism, "learning to ride the skateboard" only makes sense for a very small slice of what we see in the world, and to make up for the rest, innumerable failsafes are invented. 1/2 of humans born get the Celestial kingdom without a mortal test, according to James Talmage in Jesus the Christ. Parents can raise their children who died in the Millennium. Children born mentally handicap were key in driving out Satan during the war in heaven, and it would have been unfair to give them full faculties because Satan wouldn't have let them alone for an instant. Dan Peterson can't even say for sure Hitler got an adequate chance learn to ride the skateboard of mortality. The problem is, the fair test to ride a skateboard and take the risk to do it could make sense in principle, but most of what we see in reality, on the ground, doesn't fit well with that explanation. It's an endless web of qualifications and failsafes.

You do like analogies don’t you? As though there is some all encompassing eternal truth being expressed.

Pi A.I.:

Analogies can be a powerful tool for explaining complex ideas and making connections between different concepts, but they can also be misleading or inadequate if they are not used carefully.

One reason for this is that analogies often rely on simplifying complex ideas or situations, which can result in oversimplification or distortion of the original concept.

Additionally, analogies are often based on personal experiences and perspectives, which can make them subjective and open to interpretation.

Finally, analogies can break down when they are applied to situations that are too different from the original context, or when they fail to account for important differences between the two concepts being compared.

For these reasons, it's important to use analogies with caution and to consider their limitations when using them to explain or understand complex ideas.

I guess at the end of the day it might be well to consider whether or not all of your analogies have a direct corollary with objective truth. They make for good entertainment, however.

And they do take time to come up with. So thanks for that.

It’s a question of whether they have any real meaning ‘on the ground’ when it comes to how God interacts with mankind. They sort of fall flat if there is a creator God, don’t they?

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

Prevarication again. Most here, for instance, are non believers. Most believe in some degree of free will. Which is what you've said you believe: free will with some constraints. But you know all that and are lying about it...

That's what is so disingenuous. In spite of all people have said he still just defaults to derogatory stereotyping. Every single time.

I may not really know but I wonder if MG really does not intend to make derogatory stereotypes. It is possible his argument is stuck deep enough in a rut that he cannot alter course.

It appears that MG wants an appeal to free agency to be a complete explanation for the degree of suffering in the world and people are not accepting that as an explanation so MG thinks they are rejecting free will despite contrary comments. It might be better if believers admit they cannot completely understand the problem. I like to add that the human inclination for evil is strong enough that we as a family learn through the fact that we are exposed to real possibilities of suffering injury and injustice. I think that explains something but why is the human inclination to evil hard to overcome? I have no access to an answer for that. (yah we descend from primates of an ornery nature)

[Marcus]

In spite of all people have said he still just defaults to derogatory stereotyping. Every single time.

What is it that all people have said that would cause you to think that when I say that free will seems to be somewhat of an anathema among those non religious people that don’t believe in God?

Good grief. You even lie to yourself. Here's what you said:

Free will and moral agency is an anathema to non believers.

As for your question, you know full well Morley already answered it.

Free will and moral agency is an anathema to non believers.

Prevarication again. Most here, for instance, are non believers. Most believe in some degree of free will. Which is what you've said you believe: free will with some constraints. But you know all that and are lying about it.

[MG 2.0]

The problem is, the fair test to ride a skateboard and take the risk to do it could make sense in principle, but most of what we see in reality, on the ground, doesn't fit well with that explanation. It's an endless web of qualifications and failsafes.

Heaven according to Mormonism is going to be a place where essentially all will be. Yes, there are exceptions.

Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial are names we give to degrees of heaven. The million dollar question is how will things look ‘on the ground’ in heaven. I don’t know and neither does anyone else except for some bare bones basics that are given in LDS theology.

How the transitioning from ‘on the ground’ here to ‘on the ground’ there is a rather fruitless enterprise. We can’t even begin to wrap our minds around eternity.

Children die before eight and go to heaven. What will that look like? I’m willing to leave that in the hands of a creator that I believe exists.

From one point of view it would be less hassle to just chalk Mormonism all up to the imaginations of just another man. It’s hard to trust when we don’t know the whole picture. That’s where faith kicks in. For some people that faith is going to be awful hard to come by. For others not so much. For most, I think, it somewhere in between.

It does come down to whether or not we think there is more to the story than just another story.

I do agree with you that LDS doctrine with all of its ramifications can get rather disorienting and confusing when digging into the nuts and bolts.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

What is it that all people have said that would cause you to think that when I say that free will seems to be somewhat of an anathema among those non religious people that don’t believe in God?

Good grief. You even lie to yourself. Here's what you said:

Free will and moral agency is an anathema to non believers.

As for your question, you know full well Morley already answered it.

Prevarication again. Most here, for instance, are non believers. Most believe in some degree of free will. Which is what you've said you believe: free will with some constraints. But you know all that and are lying about it.

Marcus, I’m not going to engage with you on this.

Been there, done that. You may have the floor.

Regards,
MG