I'm not even going to post.

Exactly my point... what's the difference? Why is it that people saying 'mind power heals people' are looked down on? Is that such a ridiculous idea? Why is it that we can bust on people who claim they can affect the harvest by interpreting bird signs the right way, while people who claim they can affect future events by talking while noone is around are supposedly 'out of reach'? The two techniques are equally bull**** - so why call out the former and leave off the second, or god forbid, even *unconditionally respect it*, or *praise them for it*?

There's two things you can do
-you keep your belief that you can affect real world events by prayer or whatever culturally imposed belief it is you have, but you keep it to yourself. You do yourself a favor by not putting it up to the test - otherwise, you'll lose. This is not a very intellectually honest strategy, but at least you're not bothering more cognitively inclined people with it, or in mob dynamics decide over bull**** ethics, social views and international policies (HINT HINT) that affect people who'd like some sleep.

-you abandon the belief in face of real world evidence.

Nothing should be beyond debate - NOTHING. Islam isn't. The greek pantheon isn't. So your arbitrary belief isn't either, by rule of consistency.

Mort-Hog: 2+2=4 is an a priori statement. The rationalism/empiricism debate has no relevance to this debate.

Oh but it does. Dogsrool was taking the 'empiricist' standpoint, and were this debate taking place 300 years ago, he'd have plenty of allies. I was just putting it into a historical context (in that the rationalism/empiricism debate doesn't really.. exist anymore)

And the rationalism/empiricism thing is very important in the history of philosophy during and after the Enlightenment and the development of scientific method, so it's well worth bringing up.

You keep saying all this interesting stuff about human nature and how we don't know what is true and not, yet you hold so much faith in a religion which you probably did not choose at all and simply was passed on through your parents. God could exist, but why are you so set on one particular religion? Did you sit down and look and see which religion is best? Of course not. This means your faith is worthless. It merely stems from years of outside influence on your mind from your family and society, and holds no true meaning. If you want illogical, following organized religion is illogical. It's one thing that has stuck around from the old days of idiocy when we simply didn't know any better. Not to say that it's stupid to believe in god, because we really don't know, but following an organized religion with strong faith when there was no choice involved is really illogical and blind.

You assume Dogs, a man in his twenties, has not gone through that already. Faith is illogical. That's why it's faith, not fact.

Liekd OMG! Faith aer not illogical!

JESUS LIVES.



Theres way too man messed up things in the bible. Even if God were real, I wouldn't follow him. From what I've read (The entire thing) he's a huge *******.

I'd rather be smited right her right now than follow God.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]You assume Dogs, a man in his twenties, has not gone through that already. Faith is illogical. That's why it's faith, not fact.[/QUOTE]
So I should automatically respect it? **** that.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]So I should automatically respect it? **** that.[/QUOTE]

Why not? It's like someone else's opinion. You may not agree, you may hate it, but you have to respect it. You don't believe in God. Okay, super. Let someone who does be. I honestly don't see the point of athiests (hypocritical ones at that) attacking Christians for their beliefs, then complaining when Christians try to convert them to believing in God.

Well, if you're attacking someones beleifs, it should be fairly obvious you don't want to be converted...

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Why not? It's like someone else's opinion. You may not agree, you may hate it, but you have to respect it. [/QUOTE]
Says who? Seriously man this is hilarious. Is there some law against it? If someones opinion is stupid and thoughtless then I don't have to respect it at all, that's my choice.

Amen, brother. Dude's frickin' crazy.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]Says who? Seriously man this is hilarious. Is there some law against it? If someones opinion is stupid and thoughtless then I don't have to respect it at all, that's my choice.[/QUOTE]

Then you look like an idiot. There's no law, no, but it's just common courtesy. Of course, you being such a badass don't have it. I mean real cool kids don't need respect. ANARCHY!

Am i rite?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Then you look like an idiot. There's no law, no, but it's just common courtesy. Of course, you being such a badass don't have it. I mean real cool kids don't need respect. ANARCHY!

Am i rite?[/QUOTE]
Shut the hell up. Of course I wouldn't do this to someones face but this is the ****in internet. Get over it and grow up with the stupid "badass" comments.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Why not? It's like someone else's opinion. You may not agree, you may hate it, but you have to respect it. You don't believe in God. Okay, super. Let someone who does be. I honestly don't see the point of athiests (hypocritical ones at that) attacking Christians for their beliefs, then complaining when Christians try to convert them to believing in God.[/QUOTE]

When you respect an opinion, you are acknowledging that that opinion is as equally valid as your own. Both this opinion, and your own opinion, have an equal 'value' to you.
But why do you not hold this opinion that you value equally as your own? What is it about 'your' opinion that makes it 'yours'? (It is that the opinion you hold you value higher than all others, and so you cannot 'respect' them as they have a lower value to you)
If you did 'respect' an opinion, you wouldn't have an opinion at all. You'd have an infinite number of opinions all with equal value to you.

"I respect your opinion" is logically impossible.
"I respect the fact that you have an opinion" is probably what you mean, but is completely pointless.

Exactly...I think he just meant that I should make it look like I respect his opinion, which is crap. You can't respect someone's opinion if you think it's ridiculous. It just isn't possible.

Yoshi, you're wrong here. We don't have to respect his opinion. We must respect his right to have an opinion. We may or may not think his opinion makes him an idiot, though. And you should respect that.

Actually, no.

No-one has a right to an opinion.

The reason that no-one has a right to an opinion is because of one basic point about 'rights': rights entail duties. Rights are DEFINED by the duties to which they give rise.
For example, you have the right to life. This means that everyone else has a responsibility to not kill you. So when anyone claims a right, the immediate question you should ask is what duty it is supposed to impose on everyone else.

So what are the duties that your right to an opinion are supposed to entail?
- Does your right to an opinion oblige me to agree with you? No, of course not. That would conflict with MY right to an opinion. So that is impossible.

- Does your right to an opinion oblige me to listen to you? No. You can barely walk through London without some ethusiast declaring his opinion on the Zionist conspiracy or our saviour Jesus. Listening to them all is practically impossible, and therefore not a duty.

- Does your right to your opinion oblige me to let you keep it?
This is probably what you mean, yes. Lots of people use this one. They do so just at the point of an argument where they would otherwise be forced to accept an error. And it is the weakest possible interpretation of the right to an opinion and so the most likely to pass. Yet, it is still wrong. We have no duty to let others keep their opinion. Quite often we have a duty to try and change them.
You are about to cross the street with a friend, but a car is coming. Your friend is of the opinion that no cars are coming, and steps into the road. Are you obliged to let your friend keep this opinion?
Of course not, you should take every reasonable measure to change her opinion. And thus you've violated her right to her opinion.

On matters like whether a car is going to kill them, everyone is interested in knowing the truth and will take a correction is a favour. And exactly the same thing applies to every other topic. If you are interested in believing the truth, then presentation of contrary evidence shouldn't be taken as some sort of injury.
But it's just that. On some topics, people are not interested in believing the truth. If their opinions turn out to be true then that will be an added bonus, but truth is not too important.
They just like believing it, because it would be nice if it were true. But truth is not really the point, and it is most annoying to be pressed on the matter. Once you hear the words "I am entitled to my opinion", you should stop arguing. You might be interested in the truth, but they are quite clearly not.

Mort could probably turn the simple act of taking a piss into a 5 paragraph essay...

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]Shut the hell up. Of course I wouldn't do this to someones face but this is the ****in internet. Get over it and grow up with the stupid "badass" comments.[/QUOTE]

But this is the "****in internet." He can harass and lecture you all he wants and we get to watch you ***** and moan about it.

HAHAHAHAHHA....that was hilarious. "I begun the slow descent to the lavatory to relieve the urine building up in my bladder. With each step the need to urinate steadily rose, increasing such a need for relievement. After what seemed like an agonizing minute or so I reached the first floor landing, and made a bee line path for the toilet."

I think I'll stop now. But yeah Mort, you just went nuts with that one. And your example of the girl crossing the road is completely invalid and you know this I'm sure. Whether cars are coming or not is not an opinion, it is an observation..not the same at all.

At no point did I say it should be beyond debate. I have not for one second entertained that idea. Stop trying to portray me or anyone else as having the elitist attitude you continue to demonstrate.

Interestingly, it is not my belief. It is the belief of my parents, and I have a healthy respect for it, but it is not mine. One thing I do believe is that this universe is incredibly complex, and that science has barely scratched its surface even now. I don't think this is an unrealistic belief. When I find people like you, secure in your faith in science, pissing on anyone who dares believe in a higher power or unknown forces. it upsets me. Call me cynical, but we humans are small, pathetic creatures, with a very limited understanding of our world, and we should keep that in mind. If there is a God, or gods, then they're probably getting mighty annoyed with all this self-important posturing.

Of course it's an opinion. Like any other opinion, it's based on lots of different observations - number of cars, speed of cars, nature of road. But if you think her opinion is wrong, you will not stand there and think she has a 'right' to keep her opinion, you will feel obliged to correct her, because she misjudged or overlooked some observation - like any other opinion. It is beneficial for both of you to hold an opinion that is the closest to the truth - like any other opinion.

In cases of crossing the road, the truth is pretty much shared by everyone's perspective. However, speculation of the supernatural is not shared by everyone's perspective. What you say is truth is simply what you think is truth.

No, if in crossing the road, we both had the same perspective of truth, she wouldn't have started crossing the road when I observed a car. We both would have made the same observations, the same thought processes, and come to the same conclusions.
But we didn't. I either made observations that she didn't, or evaluations of those observations that she didn't, and so formed a different opinion. I believe my opinion to be correct (otherwise it wouldn't be my opinion), and to be closer to the truth than her opinion (otherwise I'd be holding her opinion), so I seek to correct her opinion and for both of us to hold an opinion closer to truth (and closest to truth possible between us).
If she goes through the same process with me, we will both continually be correcting our opinions and coming closer and closer to truth.

On the topic of 'crossing the road', it is beneficial for both of us to hold opinions as close as possible to truth. There's nothing special or unique about the topic of 'crossing the road', so that should extend to all topics, supernatural or otherwise.

"Why does 2+2=4?"
"Because."
[quote=Ifrit Zero]Does anyone know where the heck God was before he made the universe? It sounds like he popped in the middle of literally nowhere for no real reason and then made things.[/quote]I think it's somewhere in Proverbs that makes mention of someone (who I can't specifically remember) being "taken up" (which I assume means a vision) to God's earth before our earth existed. That (to me) indicates some sort of parallel-universe-type thing, but I don't know. But it makes Revelation a little more clear about seeing a new heaven and new earth. That would probably be referring to that earth.
Just a guess, though.
*shrug*

As for "popping in the middle of nowhere" - If God created everything, that would encompass physics, including time. And since we've never experienced an existence of such a nature, and science cannot accurately predict what such an existence is like, we cannot simply say that it's impossible. Or it may be, as I said before, that the physics of a spiritual universe are simply 'different' than ours.

It may be interesting to note that God's name literally means "I am." Which indicates that lack of time thing I briefly mentioned. And the Bible also calls him 'ageless.' It's unlikely (in my opinion) that the ancient Hebrews could have understood such a concept thousands of years ago when we barely understand it today.


I am not going to accept "knowing stuff means you control it" statements unless you can explain exactly why it is. Since your whole argument hinges on that, you might want to do it as soon as possible.


Because that makes no sense. And you obviously would suck as a parent. You'd know you're kid's going to do wrong at some point. Might as well start the punishments as soon as possible.

That made no sense.
For the third time, free will is the ability to make decisions; the freedom to form your own will without it being constrained/controlled in some way. I would think the term would explain itself, but apparently not. If you're going to build a sub-argument around a phrase, at least understand what it actually means instead of making up a definition to suit.

Wait, wait... So we can make something mean something because "we said so," but God can't?
I really wish you'd decide where you stand with these smaller details and at the very least stay consistent with it.

[quote=Raoul Duke]You keep saying all this interesting stuff about human nature and how we don't know what is true and not, yet you hold so much faith in a religion which you probably did not choose at all and simply was passed on through your parents. God could exist, but why are you so set on one particular religion? Did you sit down and look and see which religion is best? Of course not. This means your faith is worthless. It merely stems from years of outside influence on your mind from your family and society, and holds no true meaning. If you want illogical, following organized religion is illogical. It's one thing that has stuck around from the old days of idiocy when we simply didn't know any better. Not to say that it's stupid to believe in god, because we really don't know, but following an organized religion with strong faith when there was no choice involved is really illogical and blind.[/quote]Jeesh, why not just type "Giant Strawman Fallacy below:" at the top of your post.
Let's see:

• I'm 22. I've been Christian for only 4 years. Clearly it was forced on me by my parents.
• In college, I took a World Religions Class to learn about what other faiths are.
• I often talk with people about what they believe without debating for the sake of learning open-mindedly.
• Out of that, I seriously considered converting to something else about a year ago. I found that Christianity is the only religion that shows God reaching back out to mankind.

The question is have you studied any of the world's religions?

And I'd appreciate that if in the future, you don't have the arrogance to tell people what their own life has been like when you don't know jack about them.

[quote=Raoul Duke]If someones opinion is stupid and thoughtless then I don't have to respect it at all, that's my choice.[/quote]Arrogance + 1.

Ha, yeah right. When did you do that? Last weekend?

Well you are a huge minority (for not following your parent's beliefs) My apologies.

As for the 2+2= 4...the statement in itself 2+2=4 is really meaningless...it's just the way we state it in language... but you can't argue against the basic premise behind it. If you have 2 things and take another 2 things you inarguably have 4 things.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]As for the 2+2= 4...the statement in itself 2+2=4 is really meaningless...it's just the way we state it in language... but you can't argue against the basic premise behind it. If you have 2 things and take another 2 things you inarguably have 4 things.[/QUOTE]

What if you drop one?

"Why'd the chicken cross the road?"

MOSES: And God came down from the Heavens, and He said unto the Chicken, "Thou shalt cross the road!" And the chicken crossed the road, and there was much rejoicing.

AGENT MULDER: You saw it cross the road with your own eyes. How many more chickens have to cross the road before you believe it?

RICHARD M. NIXON: The chicken did not cross the road. I repeat, the chicken did NOT cross the road.

JERRY SEINFELD: Why does anyone cross a road? I mean, why doesn't anyone ever think to ask, "What the heck was this chicken doing walking around all over the place, anyway?"

FREUD: The fact that you are at all concerned that the chicken crossed the road reveals your underlying sexual insecurity.

BILL GATES: I have just released the new Chicken Office 2000, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook.

OLIVER STONE: The question is not, "Why did the chicken cross the road?" Rather, it is, "Who was crossing the road at the same time, whom we overlooked in our haste to observe the chicken crossing?"

DARWIN: Chickens, over great periods of time, have been naturally selected in such a way that they are now genetically dispositioned to cross roads.

LOUIS FARRAKHAN: The road, you will see, represents the black man. The chicken 'crossed' the black man in order to trample him and keep him down.

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.: I envision a world where all chickens will be free to cross roads without having their motives called into question.

GRANDPA: In my day, we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Someone told us that the chicken had crossed the road, and that was good enough for us.

MACHIAVELLI: The point is that the chicken crossed the road. Who cares why? The end of crossing the road justifies whatever motive there was.

EINSTEIN: Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road moved beneath the chicken depends upon your frame of reference.

BUDDHA: Asking this questions denies your own chicken nature.

RALPH WALDO EMERSON: The chicken did not cross the road; it transcended it.

ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die. In the rain.

COLONEL SANDERS: I missed one?

Take a math class. Math wouldn't exist if, at some point, we didn't define a mathematical object. Theorems can't exist without an arbitrary "we said so." Math can't exist very usefully without theorems. This has nothing to do with god. A byte is 8 bits because we said so, and green means go and red means stop because we said so. Yes, mathematical objects are arbitrary. Welcome to 4000 B.C. We could just as easily have defined the set of integers to include 0.5. But we didn't. We also rather arbitrarily defined the set of primes to exclude 1.

You seem to lack the ability to comprehend that mathematical objects are defined rather arbitrarily.(Uhm, by humans)

The point is: if God knows exactly what choices we are going to make, we are not free to do otherwise. Our 'choices' are not choices in the face of God, because God knows exactly what choices we're going to make before we make them.

You are walking down the street. I can foresee the future perfectly (like God), so I know that you are going to stop, bend down, and tie your shoelace.
You stop, bend down, and tie your shoelace. Was that a 'choice'?
Could you have stopped, bent down, and then danced a little jig? No. Because if you were going to do, I would know you were going to do that. The only action you could have done is tie your shoelace. You were just following a predetermined series of events, and that isn't free will (like you point out below).




..Yes, and once again, if God knows exactly what he's going to do, he cannot do otherwise. This limits what choices he can make, so cannot have free will.

The ability to see the future has no bearing on free will. It's two entirely unrelated concepts. Stop trying to connect two dots that can't be connected.

Free will [/size]

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]The ability to see the future has no bearing on free will. It's two entirely unrelated concepts. Stop trying to connect two dots that can't be connected.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to have to agree. Just because someone knows the outcome doesn't impact the choices we make.

Suppose god knows what I'm going to have for dinner tonight. Well, I don't know what I'm going to have for dinner tonight. It could be steak, maybe I'll go to a restaurant, or maybe I'll just make myself a salad. I am going to choose the one god knows I'm going to choose, but that's because he knows the future. As far as I'm concerned, I can choose anything I like.

How can mere observation interfere with my free will? That's ridiculous logic. (and yes, to god it would be observation because the future is the past as far as god is concerned)

There is no 'maybe' about it. There is no 'maybe' about anything.

It will be steak. It has to be steak. It cannot be anything other than steak.
God knows exactly everything you are going to do ever. God could in fact write it down, as a series of events. Something like:


That is is God's timeline for your life in the immediate future. God knows exactly what this timeline is going to look like, going on until infinity. You cannot deviate from this timeline.
Yes, because you don't have the infinite knowledge that God does, you don't know exactly what this timeline looks like, so it appears to you as if you are making choices. But you're not really. You're just riding this timeline.

The question I was alluding to and was hoping you'd ask yourself was..
Why is this timeline as it is?

Why are you going to eat steak, and not.. cake? It isn't your 'choice' to eat steak, we've already covered that. It's on the timeline. But why is steak on the timeline and not cake?
Well, perhaps God set everything in motion, started the Universe's timeline, and decided at the very beginning of the Universe, indeed the beginning of God, that you would have steak (and not cake. this quite clearly violates your free will to decide between steak and cake, even if free will is merely an illusion of ignorance.).
But God has infinite knowledge, so God not only knows that you are going to have steak, but he also knew that he was going to decide that you were going to have steak. God himself has a 'timeline', just like you, from which he cannot deviate. You cannot deviate from your timeline, and neither can God (because God has perfect knowledge of this timeline).
God would have known at the beginning of God exactly what God was going to do. Indeed, God could have written everything down as his own personal timeline.

The fairly obvious question, then.. Why is that timeline as it is?


If God set in motion the timeline of the Universe, what set in motion God's?

As I said previously, the only two answers are that either the timeline of God (and therefore the timeline of the Universe) are completely random , or that there is an infinite series of higher powers each setting in motion a timeline for the previous one.

I could do the same thing for a day of Einstein's life. So that means he never had free will? To god, my life is in the past, because if someone knows the future, then it's not the future anymore. It's the past. Like I said, you should think of it as god observing our lives from the year 4,000 or something. It's exactly the same as you or me reflecting on the life of Einstein. I could tell you what he ate for dinner every night of his life if I really wanted to.

Us having a knowledge of his decisions doesn't (or didn't) impact his free will.'

And frankly, Mort Hog, you have yet to draw a parallel between the existence of a preset timeline and free will. How do you know the timeline doesn't change when a man changes his mind?? You don't.

Eat a salad.

The timeline is from god's point of view. He knows exactly what you are going to do. If the timeline changes, that is if you changed your mind, to god it would be like "whoa didn't see that coming!" But god is supposed to know exactly what you are going to do.

Let's say god knows for certain that you will eat a salad this evening. He knows for SURE. He's got this fact floating around that's something like "Freelancer will eat a salad tonight" and it can NEVER be different from that. It can't be steak or chicken or a hot dog, it must be salad. God knows this for sure. He knows this will happen. So how does free will fit in there? If you can make any decision at any time, then god can't know what you're going to do. I don't see how this can be any more simple...

You don't think Mort-Hog is trying to prove that free will doesn't exist, do you? Because I'm pretty sure he's just trying to say that if god is all knowing (i.e. knows what you will do at any time, any place, etc) then free will cannot exist. Logic doesn't allow it. The only way is to say that god's knowledge of what we will do is somehow "beyond our comprehension" and that god can know what we will do but still allow us free will because we cannot comprehend it, or because the "bible says so".

I understand his point of view. However, I believe that omnicience and free will can coexist. Here's why:

Emon, suppose God dropped by your place in a few minutes and gave you an immutable fact that will take place this evening; for example, that I will eat a salad for dinner. How would your newfound knowledge alter my decision? Do you understand where I'm coming from? God giving you a bit of knowledge and my dinner decision are completely unrelated processes. Just because some immutable fact exists pertaining to my life does not mean I didn't truly decide.

Given a set of all possible timelines pertaining to one's life, there has to exist one immutable timeline whether there's a god or not. It's pointless to argue about whether the decisions constituting that timeline were truly free or not because there is no perceivable difference between 'true' decisions that exist in a random universe and 'quasi-true' decisions that exist in an omnicient universe.

The point of free will, and of free decisions, is that the future isn't like the past.
The past can be written down as a series of events, and in history books it usually is.
But if we have free will, then the future cannot be written down as a similar timeline, because the future has to be 'unwritten' and our decisions 'write' that future. We make choices, we make decisions, and we write the future.
If the future is already written (like the past is), then we are not making choices and we are not making decisions - we are just following that timeline.



But you cannot decide anything that contradicts this immutable fact (otherwise it would not be immutable).

For you to truly decide, it would require God to come down and say "you are going to have a salad!" and then you going to "aha! well, now I shall have cake!" and God going "oh. crap."

But that isn't going to happen, because God knows what he's going to do, and what you're going to do in response, so he'd know that by telling you that you're going to have salad, you will in fact have cake. (So God would in fact be lying. I don't quite know is God is supposed to be all-honest.)


Unless God is actually just guessing, and is by sheer chance getting it absolutely right every single time.

Okay, then answer me this: what is the difference between following such a timeline and writing it ourselves?

I submit again: there is no perceivable difference. (which in retrospect is a strong argument for a random universe)