+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 LastLast
Results 801 to 850 of 943

Thread: It's Easter -- Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?

  1. #801
    Duke of New York Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    21,528
    Quote Originally Posted by formermav43 View Post
    I think Christian, atheists, and Jews can unite in acknowledging that you are certifiable.
    Yeah, but we knew that long before this thread.

  2. #802
    Duke of New York Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97 Shaggy Gold Club Hellraiser97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    21,528
    Quote Originally Posted by FriendO View Post
    this King Davis is as real as Santa is/
    I agree. No way is King Davis a real dude.

  3. #803
    asshat Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Peoples' Front of Judea
    Posts
    10,794
    You do know that there is no way that you're getting into heaven with an attitude like this?

  4. #804
    asshat BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    4,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolemite View Post
    Consider how our scientists build computer programs to simulate outcomes such as nuclear explosions. They write the code and watch it unfold to obtain results to answer their questions. While they wrote they code they don't know how it turns out until it executes. It's a learning experience for them.
    Careful. That analogy would deny God's omnipotence.

  5. #805
    asshat Austinvines slams and goes hard. Austinvines slams and goes hard. Austinvines slams and goes hard. Austinvines slams and goes hard. Austinvines slams and goes hard. Austinvines slams and goes hard. Austinvines slams and goes hard. Austinvines slams and goes hard. Austinvines slams and goes hard. Austinvines slams and goes hard. Austinvines slams and goes hard. Austinvines's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dwelling on the threshold
    Posts
    1,780
    Do you explain in this thread what the concentration camps and the charred bones within them "actually" are?

  6. #806
    The Commit-able Offer TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    I'm just here to frack an earth chick
    Posts
    12,457
    Quote Originally Posted by BrickHorn View Post
    Careful. That analogy would deny God's omnipotence.
    or help to explain everything.

  7. #807
    asshat formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    4,691
    Quote Originally Posted by BrickHorn View Post
    Careful. That analogy would deny God's omnipotence.
    Not necessarily. Read up on open theism.
    Last edited by formermav43; 07-06-2012 at 03:08 PM.

  8. #808
    asshat BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    4,642
    Quote Originally Posted by formermav43 View Post
    Not necessarily. Read up on open theism.
    Care to explain?

    If God is unable to predict the results of His simulation before it is run -- i.e. if the simulation is a "learning experience" for God -- then there is some knowledge that was unavailable to God and some outcomes outside of His control. Ergo, no omniscience and no omnipotence. There's really no way around it. Arguments like "God lives outside of time" or "God can choose to deny himself knowledge" are beside the point.

  9. #809
    The Commit-able Offer TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    I'm just here to frack an earth chick
    Posts
    12,457
    Quote Originally Posted by BrickHorn View Post
    Care to explain?

    If God is unable to predict the results of His simulation before it is run -- i.e. if the simulation is a "learning experience" for God -- then there is some knowledge that was unavailable to God and some outcomes outside of His control. Ergo, no omniscience and no omnipotence. There's really no way around it. Arguments like "God lives outside of time" or "God can choose to deny himself knowledge" are beside the point.
    you assume a linear understanding of "knowledge" and "awareness" as only you can.

    projecting that upon Him seems somewhat short sighted.

    There is no "if....then...." logic applied here.

    That is created by man to help man understand.

    That isn't necessarily the rule of God or the Universe.

  10. #810
    asshat BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    4,642
    Quote Originally Posted by TTomTerrific View Post
    you assume a linear understanding of "knowledge" and "awareness" as only you can.

    projecting that upon Him seems somewhat short sighted.
    How is it any more shortsighted than purporting to define God in the first place? If an alleged inability to conceive of God's being prevents defining Him as "not omniscient," then it also prevents your claiming that He is omniscient.

    But I don't buy your premise, anyway. We can certainly make claims about God, and test their logical validity. Hell, the very notion you champion - that God is ineffable - is an attempt to describe God in terms of human concepts. So you advocate a logical absurdity: in order to propose your argument, you must contradict it.

  11. #811
    The Commit-able Offer TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    I'm just here to frack an earth chick
    Posts
    12,457
    Quote Originally Posted by BrickHorn View Post
    How is it any more shortsighted than purporting to define God in the first place? If an alleged inability to conceive of God's being prevents defining Him as "not omniscient," then it also prevents your claiming that He is omniscient.

    But I don't buy your premise, anyway. We can certainly make claims about God, and test their logical validity. Hell, the very notion you champion - that God is ineffable - is an attempt to describe God in terms of human concepts. So you advocate a logical absurdity: in order to propose your argument, you must contradict it.
    CORRECT!

    That doesn't make you or me anymore "right" or "wrong"...just applying what we "know" to fill in the gaps.

    Maybe Geometry is really God.

    I don't know.

    But neither do you.

  12. #812
    asshat formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    4,691
    Care to explain?

    If God is unable to predict the results of His simulation before it is run -- i.e. if the simulation is a "learning experience" for God -- then there is some knowledge that was unavailable to God and some outcomes outside of His control. Ergo, no omniscience and no omnipotence. There's really no way around it. Arguments like "God lives outside of time" or "God can choose to deny himself knowledge" are beside the point.
    Well, open theism isn't a monolithic movement, and some proponents of it would suggest the solutions you view as beside the point. Perhaps more to the point of this discussion, one school of thought would argue that because the future hasn't occurred yet, it is an absurdity to state that God can know it as a matter of definition - it does not exist.

    That's an oversimplification, and note that I don't necessarily buy that (or open theism in general), but this is not something that is as clearcut as you make it seem. Even though "open theism" as a terminology wasn't used until the 1980s, the ideas have been advanced in one form or another for centuries.

  13. #813
    asshat BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    4,642
    Quote Originally Posted by TTomTerrific View Post
    CORRECT!

    That doesn't make you or me anymore "right" or "wrong"...just applying what we "know" to fill in the gaps.

    Maybe Geometry is really God.

    I don't know.

    But neither do you.
    In terms of standard logic, you are most certainly more wrong than I am. Since standard logic is the analytical system driving pretty much every advance in human understanding of and mastery over our universe, it is objectively superior to some self-serving ad hoc alternative. And it is certainly better than the rather childish notion that all ideas are equally valid, as if facts and logic have anything to do with equity.

    If you make a claim about God - ANY claim, including the claim that God is such that no claims may be made about Him - then that claim is open to logical analysis. The notion that God may be both omniscient and lacking in knowledge is logically paradoxical. You may believe that it's true nonetheless, but that requires that you disregard logic entirely. Once you've done that, you can never be right about anything.

    So, which is it? Would you rather be provably wrong about this one claim, or never provably right about anything?

  14. #814
    The Commit-able Offer TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    I'm just here to frack an earth chick
    Posts
    12,457
    Since standard logic is the analytical system driving pretty much every advance in human understanding
    and we have hit the cruxt of the issue.

    Perhaps this is why we call this "faith" and not "logic".

    Where logic fails, something has to take over.

    Your intellect is something I seek out on these boards, but please don't put value judgement on that which you can't possibly understand and then pass judgement on those that do the very same thing, en masse.

    I don't even know how I ended up on this side of this discussion, as I am decidedly anti-religious.

    But there are bits and pieces of each faith that I have studied that I am happiest with when I apply to my own life experience.

    Having someone tell me that I am "wrong" for doing so, who is not in a position to even understand right or wrong, seems perverse and the antithesis of what his main point was in the first place.

  15. #815
    asshat BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    4,642
    Quote Originally Posted by formermav43 View Post
    That's an oversimplification, and note that I don't necessarily buy that (or open theism in general), but this is not something that is as clearcut as you make it seem.
    No. It actually is as clearcut as I make it seem. The fact that the answer is so simple, and so contrary to religious instinct (which is not unique to Christianity, by the way), is the entire reason why a convoluted apologist theory like open theism is necessary.

    Take the example you cite: "one school of thought would argue that because the future hasn't occurred yet, it is an absurdity to state that God can know it as a matter of definition - it does not exist." This is silly, because it redefines "knowledge" to mean "knowledge of the present and past." In doing so, it redefines "omniscient." And that's the gist of a large class of religious responses to the omniscience/free will puzzle. One of the key terms is redefined in a way that carves out some scope from its original meaning. Redefinition alone is not problematic, so long as it is accompanied by a corresponding redefinition of the scope of the original claim. Your example is probably the closest I've seen to a commensurate redefinition of both the term "omniscient" and the original claim that God is omniscient. But it's also essentially an admission that the original critique is correct: to resolve the paradox, the apologist concedes that God cannot know the future.

  16. #816
    asshat BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    4,642
    Quote Originally Posted by TTomTerrific View Post
    I don't even know how I ended up on this side of this discussion, as I am decidedly anti-religious.
    I do. Dognapping-induced hysteria.

    Seriously, though, good luck finding Amigo. I had a border collie for a while as a kid. I liked that dog, primarily because it tried to herd us and it often bit my bitchy sister.

    Having someone tell me that I am "wrong" for doing so
    I see. Let me clarify. I didn't mean to imply you are wrong for looking for a faith or whatever. My point is that certain claims -- specifically, claims that God has this or that characteristic -- are testable (testible? testicle?) under a very powerful system of analysis, which will judge them either valid or invalid. It's up to you whether to disregard this system, but then the burden is on you to show the value of your system for determining the truth of any claim. Why should I adopt your system when logic has a sterling track record spanning millenia?

    Regardless, faith is certainly outside of logic. It originates from different circuits in the brain, and isn't intended to achieve the same function. It actually does some very useful things better than logic ever could. So, it's got that going for it. And it makes people feel good. That's a plus. But faith simply isn't as good as logic at determining the truth or falsity of claims about the natural world (or claims that certain concepts from the natural world apply to hypothesized supernatural entities).

  17. #817
    asshat formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    4,691
    It isn't clearcut for the very reasons you give. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is a God and he has revealed himself, the question of whether or not God is omniscient is logically preceded by whether or not he has ever claimed omniscience in the generally understood sense that you cite. If not, the entire critique is moot.

  18. #818
    The Commit-able Offer TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    I'm just here to frack an earth chick
    Posts
    12,457
    you make a good point

    I wish I could "faith" my dog back home.

    Thank you for your kind words.

    I look forward to reading and learning more from your postings here.

  19. #819
    asshat BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    4,642
    Quote Originally Posted by formermav43 View Post
    It isn't clearcut for the very reasons you give. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is a God and he has revealed himself, the question of whether or not God is omniscient is logically preceded by whether or not he has ever claimed omniscience in the generally understood sense that you cite. If not, the entire critique is moot.
    Who or what made the claim is irrelevant to both its truth and validity. If you tell me God claims not to be omniscient, I'm not going to argue with you. The claim is logically possible, and God has never told me otherwise. But if you tell me someone -- God, you, your pastor, a bath salt-crazed naked zombie, anyone -- claims that God is omniscient and that we also have free will, then I will argue that the claim itself is logically impossible. And that's true regardless of identity of the claim's advocate.
    Last edited by BrickHorn; 07-06-2012 at 04:58 PM.

  20. #820

  21. #821
    Rep-A Ponzi Scheme MP5 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? MP5 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? MP5 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? MP5 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? MP5 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? MP5 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? MP5 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? MP5 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? MP5 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? MP5 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? MP5 might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? MP5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Like a Boss.
    Posts
    18,413
    You reading a book or something? Title pls

    Quote Originally Posted by FriendO View Post
    I am just beginning to move past the Zeitgeist "wow" and into the "holy $#@! the Zionists truly do run the Western world "wow"". I am not anti-jew. I dont think I actually know many Jews. I wouldnt care if someone I knew was Jewish or not. I have been in concentration camps in Germany and have seen the ovens, and bones, and ashes. Obviously by stating this I am trying to make clear Im not some Stormfront kinda guy, Im just a dude looking with an open eye and history, the world, and humanity. Im not making judgements of anything I state, Im just stating what I read from history and what truths I take from what I read.

    I wont get deep into the proof of the adaptation of previous cults and religions into the cult now known as Christianity, as maybe that's "same $#@!ing discussion" material. Also, it truly is non-arguable as Egyptian religion reworded by Jews beget Jesus, hell slaves rewording Egyptian religion beget people we now know as Jews and the religion Judaism. No independent mind could ever argue this and no argument against this truth can be successful.

    Judaism is a lie. Christianity is a lie. Christianity is the worship of a non-existant Jew who according to legend never once proselytized to gentiles. This legend of Jesus, all of his messengers of this religion, all Jews. Why? When the Jews were enslaved in Egypt, they would have learned these Egyptian tales. They would have been the ones to learn the myths. The Jews in Egypt, as slaves (as in Rome) were educated and used as accountants, lawyers, they did everything and were exposed to everything. They wouldve been exposed to everything Egyptian longer than blacks in America were exposed to Jesus and look at American blacks and how they love their old Master's Jesus. Slaves conform pretty quick for the most part as slaves are human and humans tend to accept what they are told, for the most part. After generation's one and two, back then with no books around to tell otherwise, if you get rid of the story tellers, then bring in your own, a whole new story is there. Maybe bits and pieces of the old remain and become part of the new.

    I wont get into Gilgamesh or Horus or any of that. I don't need it. Once you open eyes to the complete and utter fabrication that Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) is as practiced and believed in, you'll not just have little faith in the valididty of Christianity but you will have zero tolerance for the ideas brought forth from the Chuches which claim to represent it and the men who claim to represent the God of that religion. Unless of course you need the crutch.

    I offer now recorded, proven history from 320'ish forward. History, recorded actual history, proves there was no Jesus. History and records prove there is no Nazareth for this non Jesus to be from. There are no historical records proving the timeline of the Jewish people as described in the Bible. We, we being generalized, simply accepted all the book as truth. I say "all the book", though Ive never believed in the more fanciful aspects which were required to be accepted as literal - Resurrection, virgin birth, burning bush, Jericho walls, wife turned to ask looking back, etc... However I assumed the rest, the narratives and stories were basically true. Mad King JamesGeorgeJohn wiped out X town with T armies and help from Nebuchadnezzar. I never thought once to wonder if towns named in the Bible would all be real, why wouldnt they be real? We are told they are real. I sort of thought of the Bible as a History book redone a little to make it a better sell. However it is not real history, it's fabricated history to form base for a race which does not exist. It's almost all bull$#@!. The is no and has never been a Nazareth for this Jesus to be from. I forget the word, but it was Jesus of Nazarene I think, and Nazarene and Nazareth are not the same thing. Nazarene means something, the light or the truth, and Jesus of Nazarene means Jesus of the Light (hello again Sun refernce). But translations got mixed up and you guys now call him Jesus of Nazareth which comes to Jesus of a place that never existed.

    What there is, is proof that Zionists (please remember, if speaking of whites, and one says the KKK, one does not refer to all whites) from Cologne were called to Constantine in or around 320. Until then, Christianity was still a minor and slow growing cult with many divisions within itself. Constantine was a desperate fellow, Rome is dying, he is up against another rather awesome Roman army led by a man 1/2 of Rome felt rightfully belonged as Emperor. This fight happens a little before the Cologne Zionists were called to meet Constantine. Before the battle between Constantine and the other Roman, Constantine pledges he will honor this new religions God Christ with a statue if Constantine is victorious. Constantine is victorious when the battle end. He, from that point, becomes ruler of the Roman Empire but doesnt become Christian for another two decades or so.

    Again, until that point in history we know Christianity had spread slowly but nothing can hasten the spread of Christianity quicker than a Roman Empire converting. As Constantine is debating to convert or not, this is when he calls for Zionist bankers from Cologne, around 320. They come as they are completely interested in his becoming Christian.

    Why would he call them? They controlled the finances, the banks. They had money he wanted. He needed money for his dying empire. They also were learned men and could tell him more about this Jesus and this Christianity. He may have believed as a true believer, who knows.

    Why would they want to help Constantine?

    1- They knew this religion
    a) orders Christians to protect Jews as Jews were the chosen people. wow, boom, the Jews have an army to defend them
    b) disallowed Christians to loan with interest other Christians money
    1- that would not interest men who worked in banking? Having a religion spread which orders the believers to do their financing through you and your kind, for eternity.

    So you have incredibly influential Zionists who came to meet with Constantine and tell him yes, if you convert the empire, we will finance you. The 300 years prior to this meeting, maybe 5% of the entire Western population was Christian, in the 300 years after the meeting half of the Western world was predominantly Christian.

    If you are not able to think on terms of people and groups out there planning for 100 years, 500 years, 1000 years, this might not seem realistic to you. But there are groups out there planning in time frames far beyond anything you or I would ever dream to think about.

    There is so much here, it's truly mind-bottling. The Bible is a completely fraudulent book created by self labeled Zionists who successfully attempted to create a slave of the goyim. Judaism, Islam, Christianity - all birthed from Egypt, adapted by Jewish slaves, then later used by Zionists bankers to create a goyim, a slave to be done with as chosen. Each of the religions as fradualent as the other with none having any factual historical basis to their lies other than Judaism and Christianity being proven to be directly taken from Egyptian religion, then edited, then some money in the right pockets and BOOM, there ya have it.


    fwiw

    The Deutsche Bank, The Bank of England, and the US Federal Reserve all were ultimately controlled by one family before, during, and after WWII. The family, comes from the same banking system that met with Constantine. This family's house symbol now flies on the flag of Israel.

    That family took the Bank of England through creating a false panic in the English stock exchange, that family forced the US government to accept a federal reserve though manipulation of the US stock market which created mini panics which were designed solely to force the US gov't to allow the Federal Reserve.

    $#@! really is deep but I don't know if this is "same $#@!ing discussion" stuff.

  22. #822
    asshat formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club formermav43 Shaggy Gold Club
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    4,691
    Quote Originally Posted by MP5 View Post
    You reading a book or something? Title pls
    Mein Kampf

  23. #823
    asshat Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    UCO Lick
    Posts
    7,155
    Quote Originally Posted by TTomTerrific View Post
    Where logic fails, something has to take over.
    Something has to take over? You mean like a better, improved logic?

  24. #824
    The Commit-able Offer TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    I'm just here to frack an earth chick
    Posts
    12,457
    or better, improved calculus.

    or better, improved architecture

    or better, improved mathematics.

    we don't know what could get "better", but to believe that we have "topped out" and can only discuss this on contemporary terms with contemporary limitations seems somewhat arrogant, if not limited.

    Which is OK, as it is all we know right now, but hardly a reason to $#@!ty to those that don't feel the way you do about it.

  25. #825
    asshat Vic Mackey has a gigantic e-peen. Vic Mackey has a gigantic e-peen. Vic Mackey has a gigantic e-peen. Vic Mackey has a gigantic e-peen. Vic Mackey has a gigantic e-peen. Vic Mackey has a gigantic e-peen. Vic Mackey has a gigantic e-peen. Vic Mackey has a gigantic e-peen. Vic Mackey has a gigantic e-peen. Vic Mackey has a gigantic e-peen. Vic Mackey has a gigantic e-peen. Vic Mackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    With the Cholas
    Posts
    35,259
    Can someone fill me in on what went on in the first 18 pages?

  26. #826
    asshat Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police is a rep whore. Grammer Police's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    UCO Lick
    Posts
    7,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Vic Mackey View Post
    Can someone fill me in on what went on in the first 18 pages?
    There is no God. Settled once and for all on page 8.

  27. #827
    asshat Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga
    Posts
    12,228
    Another thing to consider is that everything we experience has already happened in a higher reality. That Time exists only to serve as a tool to sequence events in this world that have already happened in the higher reality so that events can be experienced properly in this world without confusion.

    This would also explain why the speed of light appears to have a limit. Simply because it represents the rate that events in higher realities transition here. Anything going faster would get caught up in the transition. This doesn't mean you can't go faster than the speed of light. To do so you just have to alter the reality you are working within.
    Last edited by Dolemite; 07-07-2012 at 10:01 AM.

  28. #828
    Quote Originally Posted by Grammer Police View Post
    There is no God. Settled once and for all on page 8.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ### PSALM 14 ###
    The fool says in his heart,
    “There is no God.”
    They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
    there is no one who does good.

    The Lord looks down from heaven
    on all mankind
    to see if there are any who understand,
    any who seek God.
    All have turned away, all have become corrupt;
    there is no one who does good,
    not even one.

    Do all these evildoers know nothing?

    They devour my people as though eating bread;
    they never call on the Lord.
    But there they are, overwhelmed with dread,
    for God is present in the company of the righteous.
    You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor,
    but the Lord is their refuge.

    Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion!
    When the Lord restores his people,
    let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Per the Bible, everyone is vile and corrupt. Like the prodigal son, some persons accept God's offer to repent and return to his arms and to his grace. Everyone makes their own choice. Those who insist there is no God will be condemned by their own words (as if God would need any additional basis for doing so). Best to take those words back while you still can.

    Some people reject the authority of our POTUS, which is possible in a democracy. But like in ages past, when people reject the authority of their king, (once the king regains control of his kingdom) it won't/can't go well for those who rebel. All of us have a degree of freedom to choose/elect whether to accept God as our LORD in this short life (or not). But the next life occurs entirely in his domain. Save for Jesus, it's not possible to go in front of God's judgement seat unscathed. Jesus can be our defender/advocate before (his father) God, but only if you accept him "on retainer" and "join the family" beforehand.

    If you're gonna go up before a judge in this life, get Rusty Hardin. Because if you lose, you will have to serve time. But if you're going before God for judgement, better get Jesus. Because if you lose, you will have to serve an eternity.
    Last edited by PoofyBevo; 07-07-2012 at 10:38 AM.

  29. #829
    The Commit-able Offer TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific Shaggy Gold Club TTomTerrific's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    I'm just here to frack an earth chick
    Posts
    12,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Vic Mackey View Post
    Can someone fill me in on what went on in the first 18 pages?

    me too,

    I pretty much skipped all of it until this page.

    I find the poster "BrickHorn" to be highly intellectual and leaning on his ear about this I knew would be interesting.

    For me to believe that all of creation is just some random conglomeration of molecules and energy with out any purpose or reason seems too hard to digest.

    I read more and more Jacques Kerouac as I get older, for entirely different reasons that I read his stuff in college.

    Instead of being "Atheist", I believe in parts of everything and I believe that that is entirely possible to do.
    Last edited by TTomTerrific; 07-07-2012 at 10:46 AM.

  30. #830
    asshat Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Peoples' Front of Judea
    Posts
    10,794
    "puff, puff, give."

    - Smokey

  31. #831
    Quote Originally Posted by DrewDevil View Post
    No, agnostics are humble enough to recognize that they do not understand the entire universe so well that they can definitively conclude no god exists, period. Atheists are arrogant $#@!s.
    No, people who identify as simply being agnostic have not taken a stance on belief. Most people are agnostic in addition to being theist or atheist since gnosticism only deals with knowledge and not belief. So the atheists that you are referring to are gnostic atheists and I'd agree that the ones that I've met are very arrogant though I think that even many of them are agnostic and only saying that they know that a god doesn't exist to get a rise out of people. Even when some people quote Psalm 14 *coughs* that only refers to gnostic atheists since I think many atheists would never make the claim that they know for a fact that a god does not exist.

  32. #832
    asshat cam4mav grows his own roses cam4mav grows his own roses cam4mav grows his own roses cam4mav grows his own roses cam4mav grows his own roses cam4mav grows his own roses cam4mav grows his own roses cam4mav grows his own roses cam4mav grows his own roses cam4mav grows his own roses cam4mav grows his own roses cam4mav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Redmond, WA
    Posts
    3,566
    agnostic atheist is how I describe myself. i would place my confidence level in atheist at about 75%, with 24% left for things we can't even imagine yet outside our 'world'. the 1% is for the main religions here on earth that I would be flabbergasted at being accurate in any way. I leave the possibility there and I don't have the arrogance to tell someone else that they are absolutely wrong because I know what is right, but I don't buy ANY of the main religions

  33. #833
    Quote Originally Posted by BrickHorn View Post
    But if you tell me someone -- God, you, your pastor, a bath salt-crazed naked zombie, anyone -- claims that God is omniscient and that we also have free will, then I will argue that the claim itself is logically impossible.
    I would honestly like to see the arguemnt. Please outline it.

  34. #834
    asshat BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    4,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleph Null View Post
    I would honestly like to see the arguemnt. Please outline it.
    Free will requires the ability to choose without restriction between two or more possible outcomes. It means that one who has free will has the ability to, by making a choice, determine the future.

    Omniscience requires perfect knowledge of all events, past, present, and future. One who is omniscient must be able to actually know the future, not just predict it and happen to be right. Omniscience is not just "really good guessing." It is perfect knowledge. For this to be possible, the future must be determined. There can be no uncertainty; nothing may remain undecided or undetermined.

    So, propose that an actor A has free will, and is choosing between two possible outcomes, O and O'. If actor A truly has free will, O and O' are both possible, and the outcome is not yet determined. A god, G, cannot then actually know whether O or O' can occur, because A has the power to decide that (i.e. A has free will). Thus, G is not omniscient.

    Now assume G is omniscient. At the time of A's "decision," G knows that the outcome will be O. When A decides, he cannot decide on O'. Otherwise, G would have been wrong and not omniscient. But, we have assumed G is omniscient. So, A must choose outcome O. He may believe he has the choice, but O is the only possible outcome. Ergo, A does not have free will.
    Last edited by BrickHorn; 07-08-2012 at 10:09 PM.

  35. #835
    asshat Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face GORN Basil Your Face's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Peoples' Front of Judea
    Posts
    10,794
    That sounds gay.

  36. #836
    Quote Originally Posted by BrickHorn View Post
    Free will requires the ability to choose without restriction between two or more possible outcomes. It means that one who has free will has the ability to, by making a choice, determine the future.

    Omniscience requires perfect knowledge of all events, past, present, and future. One who is omniscient must be able to actually know the future, not just predict it and happen to be right. Omniscience is not just "really good guessing." It is perfect knowledge. For this to be possible, the future must be determined. There can be no uncertainty; nothing may remain undecided or undetermined.

    So, propose that an actor A has free will, and is choosing between two possible outcomes, O and O'. If actor A truly has free will, O and O' are both possible, and the outcome is not yet determined. A god, G, cannot then actually know whether O or O' can occur, because A has the power to decide that (i.e. A has free will). Thus, G is not omniscient.

    Now assume G is omniscient. At the time of A's "decision," G knows that the outcome will be O. When A decides, he cannot decide on O'. Otherwise, G would have been wrong and not omniscient. But, we have assumed G is omniscient. So, A must choose outcome O. He may believe he has the choice, but O is the only possible outcome. Ergo, A does not have free will.
    A good summary of the argument of theological fatalism. I'm assuming you know this argument well, and have likely read the well known counter arguments developed over the past centuries, so I won't bother you with those.
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fr...foreknowledge/

    I would argue that the classical argument of theological fatalism (that you outlined well) incorrectly yokes the omniscient being with the constraints of physical time that humans are bounded by; a non-physical omniscient being would not experience the time dimension of this universe the way we do. To illustrate, while we experience time and our lives as a movie, starting at the beginning and playing in one direction to the end, only existing in the present, a non-physical omniscient being could see time and the entire human existence like a large photograph, all at once; past, present, and future would not apply and have no meaning. We are bound by the time dimension and only live and act (choose) in the present, viewing the past as decided and the future as uncertain. A non-physical omniscient being could see all of time as decided, with us having chosen in every moment of it, just as we see the past.
    Last edited by Aleph Null; 07-08-2012 at 11:20 PM.

  37. #837
    asshat BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    4,642
    Aleph - the "God outside of time" argument has never struck me as a valid response to the problem. Free will is inextricably intertwined with the notion of time. Specifically, it requires an undetermined future. Positing a God that somehow exists "outside of time" or "independent of time" doesn't resolve the paradox; rather, it ignores a critical requirement of free will.

    To put it into more concrete terms, let's use your movie example. The notion, I suppose, is that although we have to traverse our life's movie one frame at a time, God can see it all at once. The problem is that, if God can see the end of the movie while we are stuck in the middle, then the ending has already been filmed. And if that's the case, we can't choose during the middle of the film to change it. We're stuck acting out a play that's already been written.

    All the "outside of time" God theory allows is omniscience ex post facto. I believe this is because the very notion of seeing across an entire dimension requires determinism. The totality of events within dimension cannot be known unless they are determined. Time is confusing, because instinctively people believe the future is undetermined. So, let's use a spatial dimension to illustrate the point. Assume I am in Austin, and I begin traveling to London. I view the various scenery along the way, frame-by-frame. Yet God presumably has a full view of the Earth's surface -- his view is independent of the spatial dimensions. He need not take in the view frame-by-frame. He can seen all of the landmarks that I will see on my travels as if in a photograph. But, the key point is this: those landmarks were there before I set off for London. God can see them all at once only because they already existed. My traveling along the spatial dimension between Austin and London did not create those landmarks, and I certainly was not making choices that caused them to spring into existence. Had that been the case, God could not view the entire photograph until I completed my journey. At that point, God is possibly omniscient about the past and present. But then I no longer have free will about the events constituting God's perfect knowledge.

    The bottom line is that I cannot both have free will at this moment and correctly say that an omniscient God knows what my future will be at that moment, because free will requires that the future is not decided and omniscience requires the exact opposite.

  38. #838
    just dropped in to see why this thread is still going... interesting discussion.

    quick question: why cant God see all the choices available and all the events that inevitably flow from each choice made and therefore have perfect knowledge and freewill exist?

    i believe the Universe is infinite. In believing that, there are an infinite number of other Earths where copies of me exist and where on some of them, I make different choices in every situation. I have never thought about this but I guess that means that God would have to "know" about each choice and every possible outcome because they actually play out across the universe. I find it somewhat comforting to know my same genetic makeup is living a different life on other Earths across the Universe.

    and ftr, i dont think God keeps up with every choice made by every person on every planet across the universe.
    Last edited by Longhorn94; 07-09-2012 at 10:54 AM.

  39. #839
    asshat BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    4,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Longhorn94 View Post
    quick question: why cant God see all the choices available and all the events that inevitably flow from each choice made and therefore have perfect knowledge and freewill exist?
    Because perfect knowledge also requires knowledge of what choices will be made.

  40. #840
    Quote Originally Posted by BrickHorn View Post
    Because perfect knowledge also requires knowledge of what choices will be made.
    does it? or does it simply require knowledge of each choice and the events that result thereafter? the ability to see every choice and every outcome would certainly be "more" perfect than only being able to see one choice.

  41. #841
    asshat BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    4,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Longhorn94 View Post
    does it? or does it simply require knowledge of each choice and the events that result thereafter? the ability to see every choice and every outcome would certainly be "more" perfect than only being able to see one choice.
    Which weatherman do you believe has more complete knowledge? The one who believes that anything--rain, sun, clouds, snow--could happen on a given day? Or the one who knows exactly which of those will come to pass?

    Mere knowledge of the possible outcomes is akin to understanding the laws of physics. That's certainly one component of omniscience, but it leaves a rather large gap in understanding. In addition to the laws, you need to know the actual state of existence. Not just what could happen, but what will.

  42. #842
    Quote Originally Posted by BrickHorn View Post
    Which weatherman do you believe has more complete knowledge? The one who believes that anything--rain, sun, clouds, snow--could happen on a given day? Or the one who knows exactly which of those will come to pass?

    Mere knowledge of the possible outcomes is akin to understanding the laws of physics. That's certainly one component of omniscience, but it leaves a rather large gap in understanding. In addition to the laws, you need to know the actual state of existence. Not just what could happen, but what will.
    i am not saying that he would simply know the possible choices on any given day but instead have knowledge of each choice and what happens from there based on each choice made. i believe perfect knowledge has to include all choices made and how the future unfolds with each. You are wanting to force perfect knowledge into a conflict with free will by saying the future only goes one way, only down one path. i dont agree. I believe the future spreads out before us in any number of ways or paths and perfect knowledge simply requires the knowledge of each one of the paths. In my view, there only becomes one path once the choice is made and it becomes part of the present and past.

  43. #843
    asshat BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    4,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Longhorn94 View Post
    i am not saying that he would simply know the possible choices on any given day but instead have knowledge of each choice and what happens from there based on each choice made.
    I think we need to be careful with how we use the term "choice," which is ambiguous. Let's instead use two distinct terms: "decision" and "outcome." The outcome is the result of a decision.

    With that in mind, perfect knowledge requires knowledge of both the respective outcomes of all possible decisions as well as (and this what I believe to be where your analysis of the problem differs from mine) knowledge of what particular decision will be made. Free will is not incompatible with the former, but is incompatible with the latter.

    i believe perfect knowledge has to include all choices made and how the future unfolds with each. You are wanting to force perfect knowledge into a conflict with free will by saying the future only goes one way, only down one path.
    I make no such assumption, aside from what is embedded within the meaning of free will. That concept does presume something along the lines of what you wrote above. An actor possessing free will must be able to determine a future outcome. Your proposal, which is a form of the multiverse theory, is also incompatible with free will. It is nothing more than determinism on a probabilistic scale. If a collection of identical actors must, as a group, make a certain distribution of decisions leading to a predetermined distribution of outcomes, then in what sense does any individual actor in the group have free will?

    i dont agree. I believe the future spreads out before us in any number of ways or paths and perfect knowledge simply requires the knowledge of each one of the paths. In my view, there only becomes one path once the choice is made and it becomes part of the present and past.
    These sentences nicely encapsulate our different views. If you're willing to call an entity "omniscient" despite its inability to know which decision will be made (and hence, which outcome will come to fruition), then omniscience and free will can coexist. But, make no mistake, that kind of omniscience is very limited. Basically, you're arguing for an omniscient being that would not be able to consistently win money at the Vegas sports book.

  44. #844
    asshat spankytoes might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? spankytoes might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? spankytoes might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? spankytoes might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? spankytoes might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? spankytoes might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? spankytoes might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? spankytoes might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? spankytoes might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? spankytoes might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? spankytoes might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? spankytoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Texas Turncoat in Manhattan; Humblebragging Travel Douche; Dirty Liberal
    Posts
    16,037
    Brickhorn touches on some points that I’ve often struggled with. I do not understand how people can sweep Creationism under the rug as “not essential” to the message of the Bible.

    To believe in Christianity, you have to start from the beginning:

    1. God has always been and will always be. He is the Creator and had no other creators before him

    2. God is omnipotent and incapable of infallibility

    3. God created Man in his perfect image

    To believe in #1 requires faith as the knowledge is beyond our capability of rational thought. There are no view points, religious or otherwise, that fully explain why we are here and where everything in the universe came from. So, we can give this line of questioning a pass.

    The problem starts with #2 and #3. If God created us in his image, we were meant to be perfect. But, God gave us free-will, which introduces the possibility of imperfection. Further, he created man as perfect into a sinful world, or at least with the possibility of sin. He also created a “Tree of Knowledge” with explicit instructions that man not partake of the fruit, despite giving Man free-will to do so. He also allowed the serpent to live in the Garden of Eden to tempt Man to use his free-will for ill purposes. The problem with all of this is that now #2 and #3 are in direct confliction of each other. There are only two possible solutions:

    -God is not omnipotent because he failed to recognize that man would ultimately choose sin

    -God created Man with the foreknowledge that we would sin, and therefore were never truly created as perfect as our outcome was preordained.

    This line of questioning simply covers one book of the Bible…which just happens to be the beginning. If the logic of the beginning is a house of cards, how can the rest be taken as the true gospel? While the story of Creation may have zero impact on salvation, I don’t understand how people can gloss over this so blindly.

    Imagine that I am the owner of Spankytoes Inc. and I am soliciting you as an investor. I offer you a one-time deal to invest your life savings with me. I show you projected returns, offer testimonials of others that have invested and hard sell you on how financially healthy you will be for the rest of your life. I also let you know that the market is volatile, and sometimes losses are inevitable. When this happens, there is a light at the end of the tunnel as you now can invest even more money to buy low and sell high. If you do not heed this advice, it will be your own fault when the returns start to dwindle. What I fail to tell you is what I’m going to do with all that money you are giving me. I convince you that the only numbers you to need to be concerned with are how many houses you will be buying with the returns. How you get to Point B is completely inconsequential, provided that I make good on my promise. So I take your money, show you some returns, convince you to up the ante and a couple of years later the bank accounts are barren. I explain that it was inevitable because you tapered off on what you put into the company. In other words, it was your fault that this happened. You spend the rest of your days penniless with nothing to show for your dedication. I spend mine enriched on others wealth and vulnerability.

    What I just described is a Ponzi scheme. It could also adequately describe tithing and faith to the Christian Church.

  45. #845
    Quote Originally Posted by BrickHorn View Post
    I think we need to be careful with how we use the term "choice," which is ambiguous. Let's instead use two distinct terms: "decision" and "outcome." The outcome is the result of a decision.

    With that in mind, perfect knowledge requires knowledge of both the respective outcomes of all possible decisions as well as (and this what I believe to be where your analysis of the problem differs from mine) knowledge of what particular decision will be made. Free will is not incompatible with the former, but is incompatible with the latter.



    I make no such assumption, aside from what is embedded within the meaning of free will. That concept does presume something along the lines of what you wrote above. An actor possessing free will must be able to determine a future outcome. Your proposal, which is a form of the multiverse theory, is also incompatible with free will. It is nothing more than determinism on a probabilistic scale. If a collection of identical actors must, as a group, make a certain distribution of decisions leading to a predetermined distribution of outcomes, then in what sense does any individual actor in the group have free will?



    These sentences nicely encapsulate our different views. If you're willing to call an entity "omniscient" despite its inability to know which decision will be made (and hence, which outcome will come to fruition), then omniscience and free will can coexist. But, make no mistake, that kind of omniscience is very limited. Basically, you're arguing for an omniscient being that would not be able to consistently win money at the Vegas sports book.
    i appreciate the discussion and the food for thought.

  46. #846
    Quote Originally Posted by spankytoes View Post
    Brickhorn touches on some points that I’ve often struggled with. I do not understand how people can sweep Creationism under the rug as “not essential” to the message of the Bible.

    To believe in Christianity, you have to start from the beginning:

    1. God has always been and will always be. He is the Creator and had no other creators before him

    2. God is omnipotent and incapable of infallibility

    3. God created Man in his perfect image

    To believe in #1 requires faith as the knowledge is beyond our capability of rational thought. There are no view points, religious or otherwise, that fully explain why we are here and where everything in the universe came from. So, we can give this line of questioning a pass.

    The problem starts with #2 and #3. If God created us in his image, we were meant to be perfect. But, God gave us free-will, which introduces the possibility of imperfection. Further, he created man as perfect into a sinful world, or at least with the possibility of sin. He also created a “Tree of Knowledge” with explicit instructions that man not partake of the fruit, despite giving Man free-will to do so. He also allowed the serpent to live in the Garden of Eden to tempt Man to use his free-will for ill purposes. The problem with all of this is that now #2 and #3 are in direct confliction of each other. There are only two possible solutions:

    -God is not omnipotent because he failed to recognize that man would ultimately choose sin

    -God created Man with the foreknowledge that we would sin, and therefore were never truly created as perfect as our outcome was preordained.

    This line of questioning simply covers one book of the Bible…which just happens to be the beginning. If the logic of the beginning is a house of cards, how can the rest be taken as the true gospel? While the story of Creation may have zero impact on salvation, I don’t understand how people can gloss over this so blindly.

    Imagine that I am the owner of Spankytoes Inc. and I am soliciting you as an investor. I offer you a one-time deal to invest your life savings with me. I show you projected returns, offer testimonials of others that have invested and hard sell you on how financially healthy you will be for the rest of your life. I also let you know that the market is volatile, and sometimes losses are inevitable. When this happens, there is a light at the end of the tunnel as you now can invest even more money to buy low and sell high. If you do not heed this advice, it will be your own fault when the returns start to dwindle. What I fail to tell you is what I’m going to do with all that money you are giving me. I convince you that the only numbers you to need to be concerned with are how many houses you will be buying with the returns. How you get to Point B is completely inconsequential, provided that I make good on my promise. So I take your money, show you some returns, convince you to up the ante and a couple of years later the bank accounts are barren. I explain that it was inevitable because you tapered off on what you put into the company. In other words, it was your fault that this happened. You spend the rest of your days penniless with nothing to show for your dedication. I spend mine enriched on others wealth and vulnerability.

    What I just described is a Ponzi scheme. It could also adequately describe tithing and faith to the Christian Church.
    I think you are viewing it as a literalist and i dont believe many today still view it that way.

  47. #847
    asshat BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? BrickHorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Posts
    4,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Longhorn94 View Post
    i appreciate the discussion and the food for thought.
    Same here. As many times as I've discussed this topic before, I always learn something new from these back-and-forths.

  48. #848
    Quote Originally Posted by BrickHorn View Post
    Aleph - the "God outside of time" argument has never struck me as a valid response to the problem. Free will is inextricably intertwined with the notion of time. Specifically, it requires an undetermined future. Positing a God that somehow exists "outside of time" or "independent of time" doesn't resolve the paradox; rather, it ignores a critical requirement of free will.

    To put it into more concrete terms, let's use your movie example. The notion, I suppose, is that although we have to traverse our life's movie one frame at a time, God can see it all at once. The problem is that, if God can see the end of the movie while we are stuck in the middle, then the ending has already been filmed. And if that's the case, we can't choose during the middle of the film to change it. We're stuck acting out a play that's already been written.

    All the "outside of time" God theory allows is omniscience ex post facto. I believe this is because the very notion of seeing across an entire dimension requires determinism. The totality of events within dimension cannot be known unless they are determined. Time is confusing, because instinctively people believe the future is undetermined. So, let's use a spatial dimension to illustrate the point. Assume I am in Austin, and I begin traveling to London. I view the various scenery along the way, frame-by-frame. Yet God presumably has a full view of the Earth's surface -- his view is independent of the spatial dimensions. He need not take in the view frame-by-frame. He can seen all of the landmarks that I will see on my travels as if in a photograph. But, the key point is this: those landmarks were there before I set off for London. God can see them all at once only because they already existed. My traveling along the spatial dimension between Austin and London did not create those landmarks, and I certainly was not making choices that caused them to spring into existence. Had that been the case, God could not view the entire photograph until I completed my journey. At that point, God is possibly omniscient about the past and present. But then I no longer have free will about the events constituting God's perfect knowledge.

    The bottom line is that I cannot both have free will at this moment and correctly say that an omniscient God knows what my future will be at that moment, because free will requires that the future is not decided and omniscience requires the exact opposite.
    At most we can say that free will is intertwined with our understanding of time, as physical beings in our particular universe. The asymmetry of time is a product of entropy. Do you know why we see the past as determined? It is because the past cannot be undone in the physical world due to the irreversible rise of entropy. If our universe was structured in such a way that the 2nd law of thermodynamics did not exist, then we would not have the perception of time that we do. However, free will could still exist.

    We view the past as determined, but we still got to make choices in the past. You know your past, but you still had choice in it; if a non-physical being knows what choices you will make in the future, as you understand the future to be, it doesn’t change the fact that you still made those choices, just as you made choices in the past. Past and future only apply to us, because we are physical creatures bound by the arrow of time, a physical constraint.

    Also, causal determinism is dead; Heisenberg killed it with his uncertainty principle.

  49. #849
    Shah of Shaggy Iconoclast Texan is a rep whore. Iconoclast Texan is a rep whore. Iconoclast Texan is a rep whore. Iconoclast Texan is a rep whore. Iconoclast Texan is a rep whore. Iconoclast Texan is a rep whore. Iconoclast Texan is a rep whore. Iconoclast Texan is a rep whore. Iconoclast Texan is a rep whore. Iconoclast Texan is a rep whore. Iconoclast Texan is a rep whore. Iconoclast Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    5,264
    I was living in hell until I had a spiritual awakening recently. Christ's message was not limited to life after death but also making our lives better while we are alive. I have put my life in God's hands and now have peace for the first time.

  50. #850
    Banned Cactus Pool is a Model Citizen Cactus Pool is a Model Citizen Cactus Pool is a Model Citizen Cactus Pool is a Model Citizen Cactus Pool is a Model Citizen Cactus Pool is a Model Citizen Cactus Pool is a Model Citizen Cactus Pool is a Model Citizen Cactus Pool is a Model Citizen
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Austin area
    Posts
    82
    I didn't read this whole thread since it's 19 pages long. I scanned through it a little bit and there are some good conversations about things I have thought about too. Regarding the original question whether Jesus rose from the dead, it's certainly possible for an omnipotent God and it's something that a loving and sacrificial God offerring redemption for a fallen world of imperfect and sinful people would do but I wasn't there when and if it happened. I wasn't able to put my hand in his wounds or talk with him after resurrection. I don't want to say it's all about seeing is believing because I do have Faith in some things like whether my wife and kids and family love me but I suppose that's demonstrated through currently observable actions. Some people would say that God's actions are currently observable but you have to attribute that to a somewhat mysterious and unseen force. Who knows?
    Last edited by Cactus Pool; 07-11-2012 at 05:35 AM. Reason: spelling, maybe I caught everything, maybe not

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

 

 

Home .. Advertise .. ShaggyShop .. PanchoChat
Football .. Basketball .. Baseball .. Other Sports .. RC Didn't Offer .. Gamboool
Varsity .. Hole in the Wall .. PCL .. Einstein's .. Nasty's .. GM Steakhouse .. NSAA
Bada Bing .. Can you help me with this? .. Shagslist .. Cloak Room .. Classics .. Bellmont