Guest Hal Posted July 19, 2011 Report Share Posted July 19, 2011 you dont get the premise of the thread, it is just here to debate, not to decide. I think my most recent post might get him started in the right direction. Am I being overly generous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2pointslow Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 GOD ISNT REAL YOU HOMOS....go do something productive... :gabe: edit: JESUS IS REAL, he probably works in a kitchen or landscaping company somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowbalt Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 I'm not mad in the slightest but it is not a debate when definitions of words are constantly changing and there is no understood definitions of what the debate is about, lol. What do you believe and why do you believe it? Are you arguing for the existence of God? Are you arguing that Evil exists? Lets define it and then we can discuss it. The God of the bible can do anything from creating existence to stopping the motion of the planets, so what definition of God are you using? If you continue with Anselm's a being of which nothing greater can be thought, there are many problems because the being would be greater if it could do the things that you say it cannot. Define your terms and we can discuss them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 I'm not mad in the slightest but it is not a debate when definitions of words are constantly changing and there is no understood definitions of what the debate is about, lol. What do you believe and why do you believe it? Are you arguing for the existence of God? Are you arguing that Evil exists? Lets define it and then we can discuss it. The God of the bible can do anything from creating existence to stopping the motion of the planets, so what definition of God are you using? If you continue with Anselm's a being of which nothing greater can be thought, there are many problems because the being would be greater if it could do the things that you say it cannot. Define your terms and we can discuss them. 1. I didn't change definitions. I've been consistent throughout the entire thread. Try reading the whole thing. 2. I already set the argument. What am I arguing? I'm arguing against whatever you're arguing. Why? Because I can. What I believe does not matter, again. 3. Anselm's definition works quite nicely. Read his argument again if you want to argue about it. You're focusing on the language I have used and I'm not going to quote the whole thing. My terms have been defined. Read the whole thread and then post again. I set you up to be able to succeed, if you can't do it now, you'll never be able to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 edit: JESUS IS REAL, he probably works in a kitchen or landscaping company somewhere. I thought he was a Carpenter. Oh wait... I see what you did there.:gabe: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowbalt Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 1. I didn't change definitions. I've been consistent throughout the entire thread. Try reading the whole thing. 2. I already set the argument. What am I arguing? I'm arguing against whatever you're arguing. Why? Because I can. What I believe does not matter, again. 3. Anselm's definition works quite nicely. Read his argument again if you want to argue about it. You're focusing on the language I have used and I'm not going to quote the whole thing. My terms have been defined. Read the whole thread and then post again. I set you up to be able to succeed, if you can't do it now, you'll never be able to. Since obviously we are not getting anywhere with this lameness I will propose a new topic: Civilization (as defined by the growth of cities and importation of resources) is unsustainable. Every day, Civilization causes more damage than good to both human and non human life. The sooner it is removed, the better chance those left have of survival. It is a moral duty to bring about the destruction of Civilization. See what I did there? I provided premises and a conclusion that can be discussed. Both the premise and conclusion are falsifiable through logic and reasoning. That is what an argument is about. Not just replying, "You don't understand my nonsense and you are arrogant but I will not provide any reasons why you are incorrect". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V8 Beast Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Last post was 8 of 2010 until just now.... News at 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinHawk1647545499 Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Understandable, but if God knows what you are going to do before you do it how can you say it is not planned? Your version of free will lacks the major points of nature vs nurture. If nature wins (i.e., God already knows what's going to happen, nurture doesn't change it), free will is a completely human idea just to attempt to explain what we cannot actually explain. your logic would be incorrect there, knowing what is going to happen is not the same thing as controlling what is happening. hence the difference from free will and all knowing. if the said being is not bond by time nothing surprises the said being as the said being sees what is happening, but to us the said being sees it before we do it, but to the said being since it is not limited by time it knows all at all time. a lot of misunderstanding comes from us not grasping concepts without the presence of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 your logic would be incorrect there, knowing what is going to happen is not the same thing as controlling what is happening. hence the difference from free will and all knowing. if the said being is not bond by time nothing surprises the said being as the said being sees what is happening, but to us the said being sees it before we do it, but to the said being since it is not limited by time it knows all at all time. a lot of misunderstanding comes from us not grasping concepts without the presence of time. But the argument is that as the creator, he has created you with a basic destiny. If he knows what you will do from the moment you are created, he can easily change something before birth (without affecting free will) which would change your destiny. I actually prefer to think of God as a being beyond the constraints of time. I think I suggested that earlier in the thread and no one wanted to use that definition. I don't remember. P.S. You have to remember I was arguing with myself in that post :fuckyeah: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Since obviously we are not getting anywhere with this lameness I will propose a new topic: Civilization (as defined by the growth of cities and importation of resources) is unsustainable. Every day, Civilization causes more damage than good to both human and non human life. The sooner it is removed, the better chance those left have of survival. It is a moral duty to bring about the destruction of Civilization. See what I did there? I provided premises and a conclusion that can be discussed. Both the premise and conclusion are falsifiable through logic and reasoning. That is what an argument is about. Not just replying, "You don't understand my nonsense and you are arrogant but I will not provide any reasons why you are incorrect". Start your own thread. This is my thread, about religion and the philosophy surrounding it. Stop being a noob and go start your own civilization thread. I pointed out multiple times, in different ways, where you were wrong. I offered new explanations, you just didn't like them. Again, go start a new thread if you want to change the topic. You obviously don't grasp the point of this one (even after smokinhawk explained it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinHawk1647545499 Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 But the argument is that as the creator, he has created you with a basic destiny. If he knows what you will do from the moment you are created, he can easily change something before birth (without affecting free will) which would change your destiny. I actually prefer to think of God as a being beyond the constraints of time. I think I suggested that earlier in the thread and no one wanted to use that definition. I don't remember. P.S. You have to remember I was arguing with myself in that post :fuckyeah: to say the question that he would change something before you were born to control you goes against the idea of free will as influencing something to change your will is not free will. The premise is He knows your destiny but you chose it. at least another person in this thread can grasp timelessness.:fuckyeah: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 to say the question that he would change something before you were born to control you goes against the idea of free will as influencing something to change your will is not free will. The premise is He knows your destiny but you chose it. at least another person in this thread can grasp timelessness.:fuckyeah: My idea of free will in this point is that is basically starts when you're born and can begin making decisions, however limited they may be. My counterpoint to my original point is not the typical theist view. I'm suggesting that in creation, God essentially says what you will be doing because he already knows what you will do. This one is actually limited by God existing in linear time. This point is the opposite of what most would argue with free will and that's why I needed to say it against my original argument. Basically using that argument, I was saying that because free will does not exist with an omnipotent/omniscient being, God must not exist. It's a stretch, but I've seen worse arguments. I think it's interesting to discuss what eternal really means. I like to think that it is an existence outside of time. That basically says that God sees past, present, and future simultaneously. I think one reason people don't like that idea is that it is complex and difficult to picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 to say the question that he would change something before you were born to control you goes against the idea of free will as influencing something to change your will is not free will. The premise is He knows your destiny but you chose it. at least another person in this thread can grasp timelessness.:fuckyeah: I'm not sure if any human being on this planet can truly grasp timelessness(discounting the underdeveloped, otherwise handicapped, or very young). The idea is simple enough to say of course, conceptualize even, but grasp? That could be semantics though. I will always argue that freewill and an omnipotent deity that is privy to your entire existence, on the scale of every thought and action, without fail, is a contradiction of cosmic proportions. It simply fails, unless one changes the definition of either variable. If you have a million possible futures and God knows all one million, every waking second of each, yet he does not know which you will surely choose, he is not all-powerful/all-knowing. If he does know without fail, and you will take this course or otherwise unravel the definition of "God" in this instance, then you do not choose. You play out as designed. So whose definition are we talking about now ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinHawk1647545499 Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 I think it's interesting to discuss what eternal really means. I like to think that it is an existence outside of time. That basically says that God sees past, present, and future simultaneously. I think one reason people don't like that idea is that it is complex and difficult to picture. i would agree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowbalt Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Start your own thread. This is my thread, about religion and the philosophy surrounding it. Stop being a noob and go start your own civilization thread. I pointed out multiple times, in different ways, where you were wrong. I offered new explanations, you just didn't like them. Again, go start a new thread if you want to change the topic. You obviously don't grasp the point of this one (even after smokinhawk explained it). Your thread was not titled, "The Philosophy of Religion" and you also recommended topics to "get us started" so I apologize that I did not view this thread as narrowmindedly as yourself. I was simply viewing it as a thread to discuss Religion/Philosophy. An "All powerful/Omnipotent and an all knowing/Omniscient God is completely incompatible with the idea of Free Will. Free Will being that I am able to make a choice that I choose. Anselm's God/God of the Bible *but not quite Jesus, knows everything including each and every choice that I make, before I make them. (I can say this because of the Omniscient clause, not by having some personal knowledge of God)Keep in mind this also means that He/She/It chooses to create me knowing everything I will do as well as every outcome of my actions. You say I have choices but God already knew them, before I was even born. No matter what choice I think I make, God would have already known it and chose to let me be created to make it. If you say that God doesn't have these powers I ask you how you know this? This is not a far stretch from being able to hear every prayer, stop the passing of time, or at least the rotation of the planets according to the bible, or any other super power you can come up with. God would need to exist outside of time and space in order to create time and space. This made more silly by idea that God is eternal Insanity continues by God existing outside of material influence (whats the point in believing in something having no effect on the physical world?) All of this rubbish stems from quasi intellectual philosophy from the bible or other religious text. You must first believe in the truth of the holy text for its words to become facts and not a story. If we are to discuss make believe phantoms we must define them. This way, we can discuss them. Is it the new testament Christian God? Hindu Gods? Hebrew God? etc. All you said before was some foolishness like "Major gods like .....God, oh yeah, and Zeus too." What does that even mean? Zeus had much different powers than the God of the Christian bible if that is god you were referring to.... (you are never clear or definitive in your answers, only snarky and pompous). If we are to discuss the powers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other gods we have to know which gods we are talking about and where we get this information that we know about them. Is it from the bible or the textbook? Can other people see it and/ or confirm it? Or does it just come from within.... Further evidence of you contradicting or just becoming whimsical with your logic is the notion that you are not necessarily arguing from a Theist's point of view. Anselm's God which you at least partially agreed to, would be much greater if it could intervene in the real, material, day to day world. Any supernatural god that can effect the material world is Theistic. I could go along with a Deistic worldview but I feel there is far, far too much evidence against a Theistic force in the world. So again, you will need to define your God, what it's powers are, and then we can have a nonsensical but logical conversation about what this hypothetical god could allow us to do or not do. This is a good description of my thoughts of the subjects of Free Will and Theism, : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Yeah, you can try to get into your version of a discussion with someone else. I'm not wasting my time with someone who cannot handle simple concepts like you. I'm not repeating myself anymore, I've done that enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck531 Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 God/Jesus Isn't real. /thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowbalt Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Yeah, you can try to get into your version of a discussion with someone else. I'm not wasting my time with someone who cannot handle simple concepts like you. I'm not repeating myself anymore, I've done that enough. The problem is that you repeat yourself. You keep saying that I am wrong but you never say why and when you do give an explanation, you simply reply with something that is so ambiguous it doesn't even mean anything. Here, I'll break it down for you. 1: Does God exist? If yes, why do you think so? If no, why do you think not? 1(a): Can the existence of God be proven or disproven scientifically or logically? 1:Probably not. No evidence. 1(a)To the extent of the impact god has on the physical world. 2: How do you think the universe was created? (i.e., Not just the big bang, but what cause it) 2(a): Is there a sound basis for the theory of intelligent design? 2:The big bang theory is the best explanation for the creation of the universe. We could speculate all day on the cause but long story short there is no evidence at this point. If you say god, where did that come from. Everyone is just guessing here. 2(a)There must be a designer for intelligent design to happen. No designer, no sound reason to believe in it. 3: If God exists as an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being why does evil exist? 3:It doesn't but if it does and did, it would need to be a very, very cruel God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 The problem is that you repeat yourself. You keep saying that I am wrong but you never say why and when you do give an explanation, you simply reply with something that is so ambiguous it doesn't even mean anything. Nope, not taking the bait. I'm not having a discussion with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2pointslow Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 The problem is that you repeat yourself. You keep saying that I am wrong but you never say why and when you do give an explanation, you simply reply with something that is so ambiguous it doesn't even mean anything. lol slowbalt meet hal...:dumb: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinHawk1647545499 Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 An "All powerful/Omnipotent and an all knowing/Omniscient God is completely incompatible with the idea of Free Will. not logical. Just because something can control does not indicate that the something does control. It can have restraint on an agreement one has made to give humans free will, though has the ability to control, but restrains from controlling... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillJoy Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Why are we here? KillJoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 lol slowbalt meet hal...:dumb: That would make sense if I hadn't given him multiple specific examples and explained why he was wrong. Honestly, he seems incapable of having any sort of intelligent discussion without getting defensive. Not to mention, arguing with him is like arguing with a dog. Me: Here's why your wrong. Slowbalt: No, I'm going to repeat the same argument. Me: Here's why you're still wrong. Slowbalt: That's not a reason, you're playing linguistic tricks. Me: No, here's why you're wrong. Slowbalt: I want another example. Me: Ok, here's another example. Slowbalt: No, I'm going to repeat the same argument. You called me arrogant even though you were only referring to human arrogance the whole time. Me: Fuck this. Slowbalt: No, I want to start a new argument! Me: No, that's dumb. I'm done with you. Slowbalt: No you're not, I'm going to keep going. Me:... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hal Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Why are we here? KillJoy To eat, sleep, and fuck. Why else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.