Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If God know's all then he knows how a particular person is going to live and die. Knowing all, God would have to be full aware of the choices that person would make in his life. If this person leads himself to damnation through a life full of sin. It is something that God would have to be aware of even before this person was breathed into existence. Does God create these people with a destiny to end up in hell? I suppose i am getting into calvinism here. We are, all of us predestined for either heaven or hell. If this is true...,God creates people destined for hell. It obviously destroy's the "free will" theory, but even more, what is the point?

I hope that i was able to convey this thought clearly. It is very late, or early for for me.

Its not predestined because its up to you to do it...you don't have a fixed fate.

Time is a silly concept you really need to forget about.

If I go in a time machine, go forward 50 years and see you with two grandchildren and a pet cat called Minx living in New York that does not mean you a predestined to have that fate...its just the sum of the choices you make...

Well, if you're a Calvinist it apparently is predestined.

Yes, it is God's fault. And he takes the blame. But what was done cannot be undone. He can't just destroy the world he made, for he would take the chances of some humans to live their life. He doesn't want to force the humans into listening to him, he wants to make them understand that it is only his way that can work. God takes all the blame, and that is why he must not be criticized.

Christian concepts of free will generally attempt to skirt such issues of predestination, that the paradox (to believers) doesn't exist. Of course, it doesn't make the Christian concept of free will any more coherent than it is (which isn't much) but it's a handy way out of such disturbing implications as God making people destined for hell.

So it's really kind of a wash. Christians have beliefs that make the question irrelevant, since predestination doesn't exist in their opinions and free will does. Non-Christians don't believe in the Christian God in the first place, and some don't believe in hell or free will, so they have no reason to attempt to reconcile the question either, since the question's premise is flawed in their opinions. Therefore, any side can easily reconcile the so-called problem, they just do it through different means.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Christian concepts of free will generally attempt to skirt such issues of predestination, that the paradox (to believers) doesn't exist. Of course, it doesn't make the Christian concept of free will any more coherent than it is (which isn't much) but it's a handy way out of such disturbing implications as God making people destined for hell.

So it's really kind of a wash. Christians have beliefs that make the question irrelevant, since predestination doesn't exist in their opinions and free will does. Non-Christians don't believe in the Christian God in the first place, and some don't believe in hell or free will, so they have no reason to attempt to reconcile the question either, since the question's premise is flawed in their opinions. Therefore, any side can easily reconcile the so-called problem, they just do it through different means.

You have succeeded wrapping a complex problem into a beautiful package. But packages are opened again at Christmas.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Its not predestined because its up to you to do it...you don't have a fixed fate.

Are you saying god has no idea what is going to happen?

There is a fixed date for humanity, but not for individual humans. I think that's what he meant.

Well, then let's wait for him to respond to the question I asked him and we'll find out what he meant together.

Seems liek a good plan

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
I do believe we have free will and choose our own path in the end, but lately i have been struggling with the idea that God is infallible. We may have free will, but does God not know which path we will ultimately choose? Maybe, God creates each one of us with two separate fates. One leads to salvation and the other leads to damnation and it is up to us to choose. God still has to know which we will choose before we do. If he doesn't, does this make him fallible? If it doesn't make him fallible then what? If he does know which path we will choose in the end. He creates certain people knowing that they will choose damnation over salvation.

When someone is created just because God knows the ultimate destination of their life doesn't mean it isn't up to the person to choose.

The problem here is our concept of time- someone studying History in the 45th Century might be learning that Obama instituted a second holocaust...that doesn't mean that Obama is fixed to that fate- it up to him to choose...

Originally posted by Devil King
Are you saying god has no idea what is going to happen?

God knowing doesn't stop you from making the decisions and choices...again time is not linear.

If you CHOOSE to jump off a bridge tomorrow and you die- thats your life over. You might CHOOSE not to jump off the bridge however...God knows what choice you will make, but that doesn't stop you making the choice.

Again, think of a Time Machine.

If I go into the future say...70 years and read a biography of your life...my knowledge of what you are going to do doesn't take away your free will to make the decisions and even change it...

Yes it does. If you read a biography of my life, it is because I made the decisions that were in that book(/holoscreen). I would have lived and died already, and will have had the chance to make all of the decisions. The fact that they affected someone (to make the book) means that they have happened. Is it destiny? No. From your timeline, however, I have already made those decisions. Since I didn't make different decisions, from when you read the book, I have no choices. I will have been locked in. 'God' locks in EVERYONE to their decisions.

Originally posted by Jbill311
Yes it does. If you read a biography of my life, it is because I made the decisions that were in that book(/holoscreen). I would have lived and died already, and will have had the chance to make all of the decisions. The fact that they affected someone (to make the book) means that they have happened. Is it destiny? No. From your timeline, however, I have already made those decisions. Since I didn't make different decisions, from when you read the book, I have no choices. I will have been locked in. 'God' locks in EVERYONE to their decisions.

A biography has no effect on the subject. It simply records the past, every choice was still there to be made or not made. Standing in the future and looking back doesn't take away the options from anyone.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
God knowing doesn't stop you from making the decisions and choices...again time is not linear.

If you CHOOSE to jump off a bridge tomorrow and you die- thats your life over. You might CHOOSE not to jump off the bridge however...God knows what choice you will make, but that doesn't stop you making the choice.

Again, think of a Time Machine.

If I go into the future say...70 years and read a biography of your life...my knowledge of what you are going to do doesn't take away your free will to make the decisions and even change it...

Let's say, a guy chooses to sin, even if he does still technically get to choose, he's still created with God knowing he'll sin...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Let's say, a guy chooses to sin, even if he does still technically get to choose, he's still created with God knowing he'll sin...

So...would you rather never live to have the opportunity?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
When someone is created just because God knows the ultimate destination of their life doesn't mean it isn't up to the person to choose.

The problem here is our concept of time- someone studying History in the 45th Century might be learning that Obama instituted a second holocaust...that doesn't mean that Obama is fixed to that fate- it up to him to choose...

That doesn't even make sense. If they're studying the history of it, it happened. It had to happen that way because that's how it did happen.

Yes, we choose things. We make decisions from among myriad possibilities on a daily basis. Yet we had to make those choices, and could have made no others. There's a cause for each action, whether it's a large, identifiable cause, or a cause that is so small and imperceptible that we can't actively record it because it deals with brain processes that we can't track. And a cause that precedes the actions that lead to the decision. So on and so forth. Causality. Simple enough.

But Christians seem to think we actually could pick something else. Say you're deciding between vanilla and chocolate. You're torn. You choose chocolate. Now rewind existence to before the choice and run it again. You aren't aware of the first iteration, and all the particulars of the situation, down to a sub-atomic level, are the same. You'd pick chocolate. Run it a million times, you'd pick chocolate. What is it that gives free will then? What makes Christians believe that if you did that, sometimes you'd pick chocolate and others vanilla? God does. Yet, how is it "free" if some divine randomness is inserted into the equation? It isn't "you" making the decision....meaning, the physical (and even metaphysical) aspects of yourself causally affecting one another to make a decision. That's determinism, and would be the only way we'd actually be free in the sense that we determine our actions for ourselves. How is it that our actions, and ours alone, are outside causality? How is everything we do not determined by that which comes before it? It isn't in a Christian paradigm.

Pseudo-scientific attempts to sneak free will in the back door that is quantum mechanics have also been thoroughly debunked and called into question. We have no rational reason for believing everything we do isn't determined by that which precedes it.

So yes, we choose things all the time. But free will is thrown around far too often without justification. Perceiving a choice, and having a choice (both of which we do), isn't the same as saying the choice will be made a certain way, and could be no other way. Issuing God paradoxes like this one is starting with a flawed premise, because Christian free will is logically impossible to begin with.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So...would you rather never live to have the opportunity?

But that life is given with foreknowledge of what descision the person will make; at least according to your answer.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A biography has no effect on the subject. It simply records the past, every choice was still there to be made or not made. Standing in the future and looking back doesn't take away the options from anyone.

I was trying to say that for the biography to exist, the actions and decisions all had to be completed. Digimark made my point for me on pg. 2.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
God knowing doesn't stop you from making the decisions and choices...again time is not linear.

If you CHOOSE to jump off a bridge tomorrow and you die- thats your life over. You might CHOOSE not to jump off the bridge however...God knows what choice you will make, but that doesn't stop you making the choice.

Again, think of a Time Machine.

If I go into the future say...70 years and read a biography of your life...my knowledge of what you are going to do doesn't take away your free will to make the decisions and even change it...

Beautifully explained, if I might add.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
That doesn't even make sense. If they're studying the history of it, it happened. It had to happen that way because that's how it did happen.

Yes, we choose things. We make decisions from among myriad possibilities on a daily basis. Yet we had to make those choices, and could have made no others. There's a cause for each action, whether it's a large, identifiable cause, or a cause that is so small and imperceptible that we can't actively record it because it deals with brain processes that we can't track. And a cause that precedes the actions that lead to the decision. So on and so forth. Causality. Simple enough.

But Christians seem to think we actually could pick something else. Say you're deciding between vanilla and chocolate. You're torn. You choose chocolate. Now rewind existence to before the choice and run it again. You aren't aware of the first iteration, and all the particulars of the situation, down to a sub-atomic level, are the same. You'd pick chocolate. Run it a million times, you'd pick chocolate. What is it that gives free will then? What makes Christians believe that if you did that, sometimes you'd pick chocolate and others vanilla? God does. Yet, how is it "free" if some divine randomness is inserted into the equation? It isn't "you" making the decision....meaning, the physical (and even metaphysical) aspects of yourself causally affecting one another to make a decision. That's determinism, and would be the only way we'd actually be free in the sense that we determine our actions for ourselves. How is it that our actions, and ours alone, are outside causality? How is everything we do not determined by that which comes before it? It isn't in a Christian paradigm.

Pseudo-scientific attempts to sneak free will in the back door that is quantum mechanics have also been thoroughly debunked and called into question. We have no rational reason for believing everything we do isn't determined by that which precedes it.

So yes, we choose things all the time. But free will is thrown around far too often without justification. Perceiving a choice, and having a choice (both of which we do), isn't the same as saying the choice will be made a certain way, and could be no other way. Issuing God paradoxes like this one is starting with a flawed premise, because Christian free will is logically impossible to begin with.

I think it to be a bit of a shallow view on free will.

First of all, we have to put time afar. What you read in history is factual, but never does it reveal 100% of the story. Should someone be perceived only based on what he did? Wrong.

Second, God is above causality. Causality is linked to time, and God is not. Being outside, he does not affect our decisions to choose our own fate. Ice cream is a small example. Free will means that nothing is blocking you from chosing one or another. If you like chocalate better, then of course you'll choose chocolate. If the choice of chocolate is not available to you, then you'll pick something else. Don't mix free will and preferences.

If you trancend this example in life, you'll find the same logic. You'll always go to your preferences, but nothing stops you from doing otherwise. I could one day go against my habit and decide to pick the vanilla ice cream instead. I did it of my own free will, and God knew I would pick that. If I went back in time and decided to pick the chocolate because I prefer it, I did it again with my free will, and God knew that I would pick the chocolate one.

I have to go now, so I'll finish later lol.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
God knowing doesn't stop you from making the decisions and choices...again time is not linear.

If you CHOOSE to jump off a bridge tomorrow and you die- thats your life over. You might CHOOSE not to jump off the bridge however...God knows what choice you will make, but that doesn't stop you making the choice.

Again, think of a Time Machine.

If I go into the future say...70 years and read a biography of your life...my knowledge of what you are going to do doesn't take away your free will to make the decisions and even change it...

Okay....So that's like saying that you decide your gay, but God already knew you were gonna make that choice but let you make it anyway. Basically he let you live just to go to Hell. Wow. That doesn't sound very compassionate at all. It would have been better if he had not let you live at all.

How can you change it? Either God know what you're gomg to do or not. There's no in between. If you can change a choice that God has already foreseen, then God is fallible and pretty much negates the "All-Knowing" thing. If Not, however, then there really isn't anything you can do to change your fate negating the beauty of free-will.

Being gay has nothing with free will, it is what was bestowed upon you.

Originally posted by Mandos
Being gay has nothing with free will, it is what was bestowed upon you.

How so? Please explain.

Some things you cannot change. The fact that you are a man or a woman. No choice in life will change this fundamental thing. That you are gay is another fondamental thing, but with different purposes.

Originally posted by Mandos
Some things you cannot change. The fact that you are a man or a woman. No choice in life will change this fundamental thing. That you are gay is another fondamental thing, but with different purposes.

What purposes?

Originally posted by Mandos
Some things you cannot change. The fact that you are a man or a woman. No choice in life will change this fundamental thing. That you are gay is another fondamental thing, but with different purposes.

Even though I don't agree with that (I mean the sexual orientation part), if that is the case, then that is an even more Evil thing to do on God's part. Now you don't even get to choose whether you're gay or not. I guess every parent is gambling with God on their child's salvation or damnation, hoping that Homosexuality will not be bestowed upon them. Jesus, now that God/Satan integration thing is starting to make sense.

Originally posted by socool8520
Even though I don't agree with that (I mean the sexual orientation part), if that is the case, then that is an even more Evil thing to do on God's part. Now you don't even get to choose whether you're gay or not. I guess every parent is gambling with God on their child's salvation or damnation, hoping that Homosexuality will not be bestowed upon them. Jesus, now that God/Satan integration thing is starting to make sense.

Well the problem with that argument is Original Sin...

God creates everyone in the full knowledge that they are going to be sinners...so what.

That doesn't mean they can't choose to live pious lives as best as possible.

So essentially, noone is born with the ability to choose to be a sinner or not...they just are. End of. Thus, your problem with homosexuality is rendered void.

Of FYI being homosexual is not a sin...committing the act of sodomy is a sin.

http://www.thercg.org/books/dtbtp.html

Originally posted by Mandos
I think it to be a bit of a shallow view on free will.

First of all, we have to put time afar. What you read in history is factual, but never does it reveal 100% of the story. Should someone be perceived only based on what he did? Wrong.

We're not talking about interpreting historical texts. Let's not confuse the issue unecessarily.

Originally posted by Mandos
Second, God is above causality. Causality is linked to time, and God is not. Being outside, he does not affect our decisions to choose our own fate. Ice cream is a small example. Free will means that nothing is blocking you from chosing one or another. If you like chocalate better, then of course you'll choose chocolate. If the choice of chocolate is not available to you, then you'll pick something else. Don't mix free will and preferences.

God is above causality....ok, we'll assume it for a second, despite the fact that it raises new illogical paradoxes. We, however, are not above it. And are therefore subject to it. Choosing your own fate is determinism. We make all of our choices, but couldn't have made any others because we're causally linked to everything that preceded a specific moment.

Originally posted by Mandos
If you trancend this example in life, you'll find the same logic. You'll always go to your preferences, but nothing stops you from doing otherwise. I could one day go against my habit and decide to pick the vanilla ice cream instead. I did it of my own free will, and God knew I would pick that. If I went back in time and decided to pick the chocolate because I prefer it, I did it again with my free will, and God knew that I would pick the chocolate one.

I have to go now, so I'll finish later lol.

You're missing the point. If you "go against habit" there's still a reason for it. Maybe you wanted to try something new. Maybe you wanted to spite a dude on the internet who was espousing determinism. Maybe {insert any of hundreds of reasons}. But that going against the habit was still determined. It still had a cause, whether you perceive it or whether it was so cognitively subtle that it appeared to be random to you. Run that specific scenario a million times and you'll always "go against type" because the same cause(s) that made you choose it the first time would still be in place (assuming, of course, that you aren't aware of earlier iterations, which would change the scenario entirely).

Whether God knows it or not is irrelevant. All that matters is that your choice is determined. You have choices. We all do. There's just only one way that it will play out. But since we don't know what that is (we can't see the future) choices are still exciting, occasionally unexpected, and rewarding to make.....because it is everything that makes us who we are that is making the decision.


...

On a side note, I always find it amusing when Christians will happily submit to the idea that everything else in the universe is determined. But not humans. It's elitism on a cosmic scale to assume that we are somehow separate and above the universe that gave rise to us, and that we are a part of as much as any other sentient creature or piece of energy/matter. Not everyone is like this, granted, but I've encountered it enough to become amused at the irony of it.

Does time actually exist?

Original sin said by some writer. It is by god who is the original? Isn't he the one that is the author of life, each and every soul? Isn't he the Creator? Isn't he the one that makes no mistakes?

If there were some original sin, He would have known about it eons before, yet he would let his creations fall, fail and the condemn them for such efforts, eternally?

Doesn't sound much like a Master Mind.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Original sin said by some writer. It is by god who is the original? Isn't he the one that is the author of life, each and every soul? Isn't he the Creator? Isn't he the one that makes no mistakes?

If there were some original sin, He would have known about it eons before, yet he would let his creations fall, fail and the condemn them for such efforts, eternally?

Doesn't sound much like a Master Mind.

Unless he was intent on allowing his creation to take its own natural course...with a little bit of interference now and then...because of his love.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Unless he was intent on allowing his creation to take its own natural course...with a little bit of interference now and then...because of his love. Eternal punishment is love? Nah, don't think a High Being would do such things. That is a humans thinking; Man made thinking,.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Eternal punishment is love? Nah, don't think a High Being would do such things. That is a humans thinking; Man made thinking,.

Eternal?

interferance?

I think some people got a little bit out of tracks here...

she'll do that.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Does time actually exist?

Yes. Space and time are a unified field. That's decades-old astrophysics.

I think what Gran Moff Gav means is that time is a human based theory. Exactly like mathematics. Do numbers really exists, or is it just a way for humans to simplify and understand things easier. When you think about it, it makes sense.

Another example, consider nature's laws. Us humans can only perceive a part of it, which cannot be put into simplification. We then created sciences (chemistry ad physics, as two of them) in order to comprehend with our created formulas, which, in the end, are nothing more than a human creation that cannot possibly hope to understand everything we want.

So, if we go back two paragraphs earlier, no doubt there is something we don't fully understand that allows us to move forward and not stay in the same moment. But is it really a force? Is it really a field? Is it time, a human created concept to understand what we cannot? Maybe, maybe not.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
she'll do that.



Yes. Space and time are a unified field. That's decades-old astrophysics. Only a theory. Others would say that there is not "time."...only our perceptions make it so.

Originally posted by Mandos
I think what Gran Moff Gav means is that time is a human based theory. Exactly like mathematics. Do numbers really exists, or is it just a way for humans to simplify and understand things easier. When you think about it, it makes sense.

Another example, consider nature's laws. Us humans can only perceive a part of it, which cannot be put into simplification. We then created sciences (chemistry ad physics, as two of them) in order to comprehend with our created formulas, which, in the end, are nothing more than a human creation that cannot possibly hope to understand everything we want.

So, if we go back two paragraphs earlier, no doubt there is something we don't fully understand that allows us to move forward and not stay in the same moment. But is it really a force? Is it really a field? Is it time, a human created concept to understand what we cannot? Maybe, maybe not.

However, it maybe true that the idea of time is a human invention, but time exists as something real that we are trying to describe.

God is also something that we cannot understand, and seems to not be real. It is more likely that just like time, God is something we don't understand. You may agree with what I have said, but not understand what it means. To be blunt, all religions are equally wrong. But do not despair, for they are all equally right.

Imagine a chair in the middle of the room, and a circle of people standing around the chair. Each person can see the chair in the middle of the room, but if they cannot leave the spot they are in, then they can only see the chair from one point of view. Now let us pretend that we don't know what a chair is. If each person in the room were to describe what the chair looked like to then, it might seem to an outside observer ,that cannot see the chair, that the information being said was contradictory.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
she'll do that.



Yes. Space and time are a unified field. That's decades-old astrophysics.

The age of a theory doesn't make it any more true...case in point- solid state...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, it maybe true that the idea of time is a human invention, but time exists as something real that we are trying to describe.

God is also something that we cannot understand, and seems to not be real. It is more likely that just like time, God is something we don't understand. You may agree with what I have said, but not understand what it means. To be blunt, all religions are equally wrong. But do not despair, for they are all equally right.

Imagine a chair in the middle of the room, and a circle of people standing around the chair. Each person can see the chair in the middle of the room, but if they cannot leave the spot they are in, then they can only see the chair from one point of view. Now let us pretend that we don't know what a chair is. If each person in the room were to describe what the chair looked like to then, it might seem to an outside observer ,that cannot see the chair, that the information being said was contradictory.

That's probably the best way you've described the essence of your beliefs...at least it was for me, lol. Thank you. Not many people can have such complex thoughts and still be able to express them so everyone can understand.

You've stated multiple times that no one can really assume to know God's will or nature. I'll stay with your chair analogy. Is it too far outside the realm of reality to you that this chair may make contact with one or more persons encircling it? If it is a higher being (and most religions at least agree on the fact that God is on a higher level than humans are), would it be that impossible for the chair to say, "I am a chair and this is my story?"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Imagine a chair in the middle of the room, and a circle of people standing around the chair. Each person can see the chair in the middle of the room, but if they cannot leave the spot they are in, then they can only see the chair from one point of view. Now let us pretend that we don't know what a chair is. If each person in the room were to describe what the chair looked like to then, it might seem to an outside observer ,that cannot see the chair, that the information being said was contradictory. You'd think a chair would be easier than an elephant.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
I do believe we have free will and choose our own path in the end, but lately i have been struggling with the idea that God is infallible. We may have free will, but does God not know which path we will ultimately choose? Maybe, God creates each one of us with two separate fates. One leads to salvation and the other leads to damnation and it is up to us to choose. God still has to know which we will choose before we do. If he doesn't, does this make him fallible? If it doesn't make him fallible then what? If he does know which path we will choose in the end. He creates certain people knowing that they will choose damnation over salvation. Leaving the definition of "God" open for the moment, such is "God's" nature that discussion always leads to paradox, because--like it or not--the finite box of language simply cannot adequately describe the unimaginable infinity of "God."

My sense is, questions such as this are best meditated upon rather than thought/talked about (though the former, of course, is not possible in a forum). At least with meditation, the finite box of language opens up to a somewhat larger box where concepts and possibilities can be envisioned by the conscious mind and unconscious mind working together (if I may borrow from Shak's metaphor: this would be akin to two or more chair observers able to unify what they see into a single vision).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, it maybe true that the idea of time is a human invention, but time exists as something real that we are trying to describe.

God is also something that we cannot understand, and seems to not be real. It is more likely that just like time, God is something we don't understand. You may agree with what I have said, but not understand what it means. To be blunt, all religions are equally wrong. But do not despair, for they are all equally right.

Imagine a chair in the middle of the room, and a circle of people standing around the chair. Each person can see the chair in the middle of the room, but if they cannot leave the spot they are in, then they can only see the chair from one point of view. Now let us pretend that we don't know what a chair is. If each person in the room were to describe what the chair looked like to then, it might seem to an outside observer ,that cannot see the chair, that the information being said was contradictory.

What you say is thet truth, but you are therefore putting strenght to my argument.

Suppose there is something we don't understand in the middle. One person out of the many that are arround says it's time. It is, for one's point of view, but not for all the rest.

Originally posted by Mandos
What you say is thet truth, but you are therefore putting strenght to my argument.

Suppose there is something we don't understand in the middle. One person out of the many that are arround says it's time. It is, for one's point of view, but not for all the rest.

I am strengthening your argument if you agree that you don't know any absolute truth. Your view of the chair is just as true as mine, even though mine is different then yours.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
That's probably the best way you've described the essence of your beliefs...at least it was for me, lol. Thank you. Not many people can have such complex thoughts and still be able to express them so everyone can understand.

You've stated multiple times that no one can really assume to know God's will or nature. I'll stay with your chair analogy. Is it too far outside the realm of reality to you that this chair may make contact with one or more persons encircling it? If it is a higher being (and most religions at least agree on the fact that God is on a higher level than humans are), would it be that impossible for the chair to say, "I am a chair and this is my story?"

Maybe the "chair" has contacted all of us in ways that we, being different, can understand. The difference is in us, not in God. I basically do not like any argument that leads to "my god is better then your god". Too many people have died over that argument.

Originally posted by Mandos
What you say is thet truth, but you are therefore putting strenght to my argument.

Suppose there is something we don't understand in the middle. One person out of the many that are arround says it's time. It is, for one's point of view, but not for all the rest.

Read carfully, I never said my point of view is superior than you. Even someone who has a larger view of the chair than the other, that knows more about it, can't say that someone with a smaller limited vision of the chair is wrong.
All opinions are different, I merely pointed out that time, as we know it, is just a perception of humanity of something we don't understand, henseforth to concrete Moff Gav's argument.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Is it too far outside the realm of reality to you that this chair may make contact with one or more persons encircling it? If it is a higher being (and most religions at least agree on the fact that God is on a higher level than humans are), would it be that impossible for the chair to say, "I am a chair and this is my story?" Personally, I don't see this as being necessarily impossible. However, the chair's story would still be filtered, so to speak, through the medium of human perception and thus "colored" by whatever particular characteristics (eg, social and psychological factors) are operating around or within that person at that time.

Even in higher meditative states, a person's mindset would still shape/influence the appearance of divine form. The only exception to this is when the meditator reaches Godhead. Here, regardless of the meditator's belief system, "God" always manifests the same: as the unknowable Void, or formlessness, from which all form arises.

omg the psychobabble is going to make me vomit oligodendrocytes out of my nose

Originally posted by Mindship
Personally, I don't see this as being necessarily impossible. However, the chair's story would still be filtered, so to speak, through the medium of human perception and thus "colored" by whatever particular characteristics (eg, social and psychological factors) are operating around or within that person at that time.

Even in higher meditative states, a person's mindset would still shape/influence the appearance of divine form. The only exception to this is when the meditator reaches Godhead. Here, regardless of the meditator's belief system, "God" always manifests the same: as the unknowable Void, or formlessness, from which all form arises.

Beautiful.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well the problem with that argument is Original Sin...

God creates everyone in the full knowledge that they are going to be sinners...so what.

That doesn't mean they can't choose to live pious lives as best as possible.

So essentially, noone is born with the ability to choose to be a sinner or not...they just are. End of. Thus, your problem with homosexuality is rendered void.

Of FYI being homosexual is not a sin...committing the act of sodomy is a sin.

See, that's my problem. If God knows that we will all be sinners and even knows if we will do things that will definitely send us to Hell, then why create us at all? I would like to think that if there is a God, he/she/it, doesn't know your every choice. It would make things a little more acceptable for why there is so many bad things going on the world. It's not as easy to write off when it's said that God knew all these bad things happen but did nothing to stop them.


Well I'm assuming that if your homosexual, sooner or later, sodomy will come in to play, thus sinning and damnation are pretty much inevitable.

I always thought that God was outside of this time concept.

It's really hard to put this into words...


Well, you see, God is aware of all potential realities for each of his children. However, he is NOT aware of which realities are explored by his children because of free will. So, yes, he is omniscient, but he isn't, depending on the perspective. Free will is just another tool used to grow to become more like our Father. Everyone single one of his children has just a few paths that lead back to Him. However, there are many paths that lead away from Him. God is aware of all of those...but doesn't know which we'll choose.


But since he's outside of time, that makes no sense to me. We were never born on Earth but we were born on Earth. We have always existed and we have never existed. It is really really really confusing and hard to understand how exactly this works without time.

Originally posted by socool8520
Well I'm assuming that if your homosexual, sooner or later, sodomy will come in to play, thus sinning and damnation are pretty much inevitable.
And if your straight at some point your liable to masturbate. Thus sinning and being damned to hell. I like to think that a) God has better things to care about than that and b) you'd have to seriously and willfully sin to end up in hell at all.

Originally posted by inimalist
omg the psychobabble is going to make me vomit oligodendrocytes out of my nose

Kinda my own thought.

And can we please stop with the "only a theory" bullsh*t. If you can't differentiate the colloquial usage of the word and the scientific one, and not use them interchangably when it suits your argument, then you really shouldn't be discussing science in the first place.

Originally posted by Mandos
I think what Gran Moff Gav means is that time is a human based theory. Exactly like mathematics. Do numbers really exists, or is it just a way for humans to simplify and understand things easier. When you think about it, it makes sense.

Another example, consider nature's laws. Us humans can only perceive a part of it, which cannot be put into simplification. We then created sciences (chemistry ad physics, as two of them) in order to comprehend with our created formulas, which, in the end, are nothing more than a human creation that cannot possibly hope to understand everything we want.

So, if we go back two paragraphs earlier, no doubt there is something we don't fully understand that allows us to move forward and not stay in the same moment. But is it really a force? Is it really a field? Is it time, a human created concept to understand what we cannot? Maybe, maybe not.

So we can't know anything for sure, and so your opinion is the correct one? beautiful. Subjectivity as an escape clause ftw.

Also, you quoted yourself and then responded to it. I can't decide if it's just tacky, an oversight, or a deliberate, though ineffective, debating tactic.


...

No one has shown why we aren't determined in our choices, btw. I'm still waiting for a coherent defense of Christianity's definition of free will.

Originally posted by socool8520
See, that's my problem. If God knows that we will all be sinners and even knows if we will do things that will definitely send us to Hell, then why create us at all? I would like to think that if there is a God, he/she/it, doesn't know your every choice. It would make things a little more acceptable for why there is so many bad things going on the world. It's not as easy to write off when it's said that God knew all these bad things happen but did nothing to stop them.


Well I'm assuming that if your homosexual, sooner or later, sodomy will come in to play, thus sinning and damnation are pretty much inevitable.

Existence should be a right in itself and not be dependent on where you end up.

Oh, and no not really...homosexual people are just as capable as heterosexual people at being abstinent.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Existence should be a right in itself and not be dependent on where you end up.

Oh, and no not really...homosexual people are just as capable as heterosexual people at being abstinent.

I agree with you,but only because I don't believe that someone knows where I will ebd up.

Yes, but how many abstinent people do you know who aren't children of course? if they can't change their orientation, they have to be abstinent. Does that sound fair to you?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And if your straight at some point your liable to masturbate. Thus sinning and being damned to hell. I like to think that a) God has better things to care about than that and b) you'd have to seriously and willfully sin to end up in hell at all.

I would like to think so as well.

Well from what preachers , have told me, God doesn't have better things to do. Sodomy=Hell is what I was told. And honestly, this was just one example.

What about if he knew you were going to murder someone or become Adolf Hitler and bring suffering to the world, or any other terrible sin that is on "God's better things to do list" that will get you sent to Hell, then why would he allow or let you go through life knowing full and well that your destined for Hell?

Originally posted by socool8520
I would like to think so as well.

Well from what preachers , have told me, God doesn't have better things to do. Sodomy=Hell is what I was told. And honestly, this was just one example.

What about if he knew you were going to murder someone or become Adolf Hitler and bring suffering to the world, or any other terrible sin that is on "God's better things to do list" that will get you sent to Hell, then why would he allow or let you go through life knowing full and well that your destined for Hell?

A "perfect" world is less interesting. If an omnipotent creature decided to guide everything so that no one defied it's morals we would lack even a semblance of free will.

Originally posted by socool8520
I agree with you,but only because I don't believe that someone knows where I will ebd up.

Yes, but how many abstinent people do you know who aren't children of course? if they can't change their orientation, they have to be abstinent. Does that sound fair to you?
Yes...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A "perfect" world is less interesting. If an omnipotent creature decided to guide everything so that no one defied it's morals we would lack even a semblance of free will.

I think we have a different view on what is "interesting". Mass genocide, murder, famine, etc. is not very interesting to me.

I do agree with you that it would take away free will if God dictated everyone's life, but I also don't agree that there is free will when your destination and choices have already pre-determined.

That's one of the reasons I like to think that there is no one up there, so to speak, and that we do not have an definitive fate.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No one has shown why we aren't determined in our choices, btw. I'm still waiting for a coherent defense of Christianity's definition of free will.

I agree. It's just too damn hard. Maybe God exists outside of our time where all our recognition of time is one eternal now with him, but maybe he has is own form of time in his existance? That would make it possible to be aware of all potential realities to be before him for each child. But that still doesn't make sense because we would have already made those choices and no made those choices. Ourselves at 2 years old and ourselves at 20 years old would all be one instant from his perspective.

I believe He created us as spirits, we existed with him in his time, learned from Him in His time, then we were restricted to this reality as spirits in these bodies to grow and mature further.



However, I'm still with you in that it makes little sense on how in the world free will is actually free will if time is one eternal now with God. I've asked this same question to smart theologists than I.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Yes...

Wow. I'm really glad that there is a separation of Church and State.

..and then there's the possibility that religion is simply a tool of control and God doesn't exist.

Originally posted by dadudemon
..and then there's the possibility that religion is simply a tool of control and God doesn't exist.

I always thought of Religion as more of a way to explain things that no one knew how to explain without any proof, but I'm sure it has been manipulated by some as a means of control, power, or wealth. The Catholic Church comes to mind from the Medieval Times.

Originally posted by inimalist
omg the psychobabble is going to make me vomit oligodendrocytes out of my nose Yeah, I hate when that happens.

Originally posted by Mandos
Beautiful. No thanks to those oligodendrocytes.

god's qualities as beleived by many faiths make free will impossible. so yea, hed have wanted us to go to hell if he were real

We just have tp seperate the real God from the God some humans want us to think he is.

Originally posted by Mandos
We just have tp seperate the real God from the God some humans want us to think he is.

While we're at it we can find objective truth about morality.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
While we're at it we can find objective truth about morality.

What do you mean?

Originally posted by Mandos
What do you mean?

Neither is possible but people have convinced themselves they've done both.

There's no way to separate God from what people think God should be. Every religious text was written by people, usually some time after the time it describes. All other attributes ascribed to God are similarly man made.

Originally posted by Mandos
We just have tp seperate the real God from the God some humans want us to think he is.

Who the real God is (if there is one), is also just a belief or faith. There really is no way of knowing who the real God is for believers besides faith.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
While we're at it we can find objective truth about morality.

but that is totally possible.

There is strong evidence that God exists, or a force of nature, if you will. But again, it takes faith not to discredit them. For the ones who have none, the arguments are a pile of shit.

^ there is WEAK evidence that sum things exist outside the scientifically viable physical wordl. whether it is merely power or has conciousness on indeed conciousnessES, we dont know. to call it GOD, i think, wud be ignorant. as god implies certain characteristics, however vague.

There is also no evidence that God doesn't exist. It's like the way a physics teacher I had explained it when some students didn't believe him when he said science had its limits. He said to decide to prove whether or not aliens were real. You could go to a planet, find no evidence of aliens, and the only scientific thing you could say is "on that particular planet, there is no evidence." It certainly doesn't prove there are no aliens at all because all you have to do is find one planet that does have one to confirm it. I know people will talk about burden of proof and etc, but just like believers cannot prove God exists, non-believers cannot prove God does not exist.

Originally posted by Mandos
strong evidence

and what is it?

Originally posted by Devil King
and what is it?

As simply as the forces that manages everything to perfection in the universe, and the apparition of organic life. Let's just say life don't pop out of nowwhere. That is one of the world's greatest scientifi mystery, one that I know we are not close to settling.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
There is also no evidence that God doesn't exist. It's like the way a physics teacher I had explained it when some students didn't believe him when he said science had its limits. He said to decide to prove whether or not aliens were real. You could go to a planet, find no evidence of aliens, and the only scientific thing you could say is "on that particular planet, there is no evidence." It certainly doesn't prove there are no aliens at all because all you have to do is find one planet that does have one to confirm it. I know people will talk about burden of proof and etc, but just like believers cannot prove God exists, non-believers cannot prove God does not exist.

Yes, but until you can show me in one form or another that God does exist, then there is more evidence that God doesn't exist. It's the same with aliens, because there is no determined evidence that they exist, right now the idea that they exist cannot be proven.

But it is just as unscientific to assume something doesn't exist just because you don't see it as it is to assume something is real based on a belief. If you were to go back in time and tell people about viruses, they wouldn't believe you because they couldn't see it and there was no technology for a long time that allowed them to research. Quite a few things that we take to be fact might be altogether disproven in the future.

Until you've proved that there is or is not, no certain conclusions can be made. That's science. Cruel science...

Originally posted by Mandos
As simply as the forces that manages everything to perfection in the universe, and the apparition of organic life. Let's just say life don't pop out of nowwhere. That is one of the world's greatest scientifi mystery, one that I know we are not close to settling.

Well how then, did God pop out of nowhere? It works both ways. If you refuse to believe that life did not pop out of nowhere, then how did God pull it off?

Thank you, Mandos. That is my point. There are people in the world that think it is utterly stupid to believe in a higher being, yet their beliefs cannot be completely verified, either.

But science isn't cruel. Not all us Christians fear science.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
There is also no evidence that God doesn't exist. It's like the way a physics teacher I had explained it when some students didn't believe him when he said science had its limits. He said to decide to prove whether or not aliens were real. You could go to a planet, find no evidence of aliens, and the only scientific thing you could say is "on that particular planet, there is no evidence." It certainly doesn't prove there are no aliens at all because all you have to do is find one planet that does have one to confirm it. I know people will talk about burden of proof and etc, but just like believers cannot prove God exists, non-believers cannot prove God does not exist.

this isn't quite accurate

if one prescribes to a particular religious faith, God can be said to have various characteristics based on the tenets of the faith. This god will probably be different to each person, and what characteristics God would be expected to have of course would be individual.

However, based on this, one can extrapolate what might happen were those characteristics true.

No, this isn't definitive, but does allow for things like the rampant existence of poverty, war, suffering, EVEN among believers, to act as proof against a God which is both benevolent or cares about the lives of his followers. One would have to explain how these things are congruent, else one must conclude that a benevolent and caring god doesn't exist.

No, this SINGLE thesis doesn't prove anything, however, I fail to see any direct evidence for, lets be specific, a Christian God. None of what would be expected of a chosen people are displayed by Christians, there are no benefits that are attributable specifically to Christian belief, there is no advantage to being a Christian than there is to not, nor are there ANY behavioural differences between Christians and non-Christians that cannot be attributed to personal or social factors/

The only hypothesis of God that can not be tested in this way is the idea that God has no involvement in the natural world, in which case, he might as well not exist.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
But it is just as unscientific to assume something doesn't exist just because you don't see it as it is to assume something is real based on a belief. If you were to go back in time and tell people about viruses, they wouldn't believe you because they couldn't see it and there was no technology for a long time that allowed them to research. Quite a few things that we take to be fact might be altogether disproven in the future.

ah, but the one thing about science is that it IS demonstrable

if you had a captive enough audience, you could theoretically explain and demonstrate the evidence for viruses we have in terms they understand.

whereas god, you NEVER have that evidence

War poverty andd famine is not brought by God, it is brought by Satan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Originally posted by willofthewisp
There is also no evidence that God doesn't exist. ... I know people will talk about burden of proof and etc, but just like believers cannot prove God exists, non-believers cannot prove God does not exist. I also rely on "There is no proof God doesn't exist" for my own personal philosophy. But this cornerstone does not put it on equal footing with empirical evidence. It's wiggle room which allows freedom to speculate and (IMO) confers practical advantages over a purely empirical map. However, one must logically concede that the purely empirical map is compelling, if not necessarily convincing.

Originally posted by inimalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

...

Originally posted by Mandos
Until you've proved that there is or is not, no certain conclusions can be made. That's science. Cruel science...

I made no conclusions. I always say "IF" even if personally I don't think God exists.

To me God is little more than a comic book character, only his writer/s claim God to be real. How do you disprove God's existence to somebody if even though there are no signs of God's existence, you believe it based on said writer/s. It's impossible.

Originally posted by Mandos
...

yes, good, now read the article and explain how you have evidence that Satan is not just a rationalization that effectively blocks cognitive dissonance in Christian followers..

giving the meme of Christianity a powerful way to spread in the face of Christians not doing any better than non-christians

or, I don't know, explain how secular values, wherever they were developed, lead that region of the world to dominate geo-politically? You'd think Gods work would be better than that of man...

Originally posted by willofthewisp
But it is just as unscientific to assume something doesn't exist just because you don't see it as it is to assume something is real based on a belief. If you were to go back in time and tell people about viruses, they wouldn't believe you because they couldn't see it and there was no technology for a long time that allowed them to research. Quite a few things that we take to be fact might be altogether disproven in the future.

To me it is not the same as telling someone about a virus and them not believing you. Virus was just a name for an ailment we already knew existed for thousands of years. Not the same thing. Nobody knew of God's existence beforehand and then put a name to it.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, good, now read the article and explain how you have evidence that Satan is not just a rationalization that effectively blocks cognitive dissonance in Christian followers..

giving the meme of Christianity a powerful way to spread in the face of Christians not doing any better than non-christians

or, I don't know, explain how secular values, wherever they were developed, lead that region of the world to dominate geo-politically? You'd think Gods work would be better than that of man...

I don't have any evidence that he is, and you have no arguments to state he isn't... that's what we've been concluding for two pages now...

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, good, now read the article and explain how you have evidence that Satan is not just a rationalization that effectively blocks cognitive dissonance in Christian followers..

Because Satan appears in the same text . . .

It's not as though he was invented recently to solve the problem of cognitive dissonance. That might have been part of the original formation of Satan as a concept but it doesn't apply to modern fundamentalists because they believe in the literal existance of both God and Satan based on a single text.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because Satan appears in the same text . . .

It's not as though he was invented recently to solve the problem of cognitive dissonance. That might have been part of the original formation of Satan as a concept but it doesn't apply to modern fundamentalists because they believe in the literal existance of both God and Satan based on a single text.

But even then, we do not know.

Originally posted by Mandos
I don't have any evidence that he is, and you have no arguments to state he isn't... that's what we've been concluding for two pages now...

actually, if you read my first reply to will, there is plenty of reason to think he isn't.

For instance, poverty can be explained very eloquently by way of economic theory and historological analysis. These causes can be tested and policy can be designed to eliminate it.

From all lines of evidence available, poverty is caused by human interaction in the economy. There are no members of a specific religious faith that are more or less afflicted by poverty in a way explainable by religious faith.

if it really were satan, the odds are we could NOT so easily say these things. No, its not a 100% perfect negation (which is impossible in any rational evidence gathering exercise anyways) but what it does show is that the Satan hypothesis for the cause of poverty fais to explain things even marginally as accurately as anything else, and thus should be rejected.

Since you have no real evidence to say otherwise, your rationalizations are most likely cognitive dissonance, as Satan not being the cause (or the idea of a non-benevolent God) are incongruent with your current world view.

Given known neurological mechanisms, the rational, thinking, parts of your brain are NEVER activated when you see conflicting evidence to your beliefs, and the system equivalent to a drug fix activates when you affirm what you believe, its actually pretty rational to believe that the better of an argument I make to show you you are actually wrong here (which you factually are) the more cognitive dissonance you experience and the more you will seek to affirm what you already know.

and that last part has been observed in experimental settings too

god hasn't

ever

Originally posted by willofthewisp
Thank you, Mandos. That is my point. There are people in the world that think it is utterly stupid to believe in a higher being, yet their beliefs cannot be completely verified, either.

But science isn't cruel. Not all us Christians fear science.

Please don't think that I think you're stupid for believing, because i don't .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because Satan appears in the same text . . .

It's not as though he was invented recently to solve the problem of cognitive dissonance. That might have been part of the original formation of Satan as a concept but it doesn't apply to modern fundamentalists because they believe in the literal existance of both God and Satan based on a single text.

cognitive dissonance being in this case:

1) I believe in a benevolent God who care about his followers

2) Christians have no special place in the world and suffer as much as even those who don't believe

where 1) and 2) are both true in the mind of the believer, but cannot both be true at the same time. Yes, satan is an old meme (and without question not the first "evil doer" meme to fill this roll) but that experience is going to be there for all followers at all times. Why there is evil needs to be justified to each person in any generation

(and please note, I'm not talking about christians using satan to manipulate their followers. To put it far more complexly than necessary, groups of people with an "evil doer" meme would be more productive because of less cognitive dissonance and thus would have spread by the natural "meaning seeking" parts of our brains)

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, if you read my first reply to will, there is plenty of reason to think he isn't.

For instance, poverty can be explained very eloquently by way of economic theory and histological analysis. These causes can be tested and policy can be designed to eliminate it.

From all lines of evidence available, poverty is caused by human interaction in the economy. There are no members of a specific religious faith that are more or less afflicted by poverty in a way explainable by religious faith.

if it really were satan, the odds are we could NOT so easily say these things. No, its not a 100% perfect negation (which is impossible in any rational evidence gathering exercise anyways) but what it does show is that the Satan hypothesis for the cause of poverty fais to explain things even marginally as accurately as anything else, and thus should be rejected.

Since you have no real evidence to say otherwise, your rationalizations are most likely cognitive dissonance, as Satan not being the cause (or the idea of a non-benevolent God) are incongruent with your current world view.

Given known neurological mechanisms, the rational, thinking, parts of your brain are NEVER activated when you see conflicting evidence to your beliefs, and the system equivalent to a drug fix activates when you affirm what you believe, its actually pretty rational to believe that the better of an argument I make to show you you are actually wrong here (which you factually are) the more cognitive dissonance you experience and the more you will seek to affirm what you already know.

and that last part has been observed in experimental settings too

god hasn't

ever

I've learned this in psychology, but I want you to understand. Anything you might possibly say, every reasoning that can come out, is automatically negated for the oine who has faith in God and beleives in the Bible. It's not because you can't prove it that it's not there. As infuriating as it can be, it's the truth, and neither me nor you can do anything about it.

And it's not so much as cognitive dissonance than pure faith. I'm not a true beleiver. There is still much I don't understand, but I don't exclude this possibility like you. It's scientifically wrong to do so.

its not infuriating to me at all

you cannot disprove any other religion, so on the face of it you are saying christianity is as accurate as the religions you believe to be false

wonderful, i agree with you

Originally posted by inimalist
cognitive dissonance being in this case:

1) I believe in a benevolent God who care about his followers

2) Christians have no special place in the world and suffer as much as even those who don't believe

where 1) and 2) are both true in the mind of the believer, but cannot both be true at the same time. Yes, satan is an old meme (and without question not the first "evil doer" meme to fill this roll) but that experience is going to be there for all followers at all times. Why there is evil needs to be justified to each person in any generation

(and please note, I'm not talking about christians using satan to manipulate their followers. To put it far more complexly than necessary, groups of people with an "evil doer" meme would be more productive because of less cognitive dissonance and thus would have spread by the natural "meaning seeking" parts of our brains)

But doesn't the presence of Satan beforehand mean that he adresses cognitive dissonance in the system (rather than the believer) and leave the believer with a, technically, legitimate way to explain why bad things happen?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But doesn't the presence of Satan beforehand mean that he adresses cognitive dissonance in the system (rather than the believer) and leave the believer with a, technically, legitimate way to explain why bad things happen?

ok, you mean the sort of chicken and egg thing

yes, but the person would still need to seek that answer, if only momentarily, when they see evil happen.

Originally posted by inimalist
its not infuriating to me at all

you cannot disprove any other religion, so on the face of it you are saying christianity is as accurate as the religions you believe to be false

wonderful, i agree with you

That's exactly it. Weird isn't it?

lol

no, its the exact same argument as post-modernism

whats weird is how religious people don't see how it is entirely damning to their beliefs.

one day they'll get it im sure...

2 words. negetive evidence.

russel's teacup, the invisible purple unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster

none can be disproven, and yet, is that any reaosn to think that they are real. its a logical fallacy me thinks.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

no, its the exact same argument as post-modernism

whats weird is how religious people don't see how it is entirely damning to their beliefs.

one day they'll get it im sure...

You can't really blame them. For example, back in the time of our grandparents, they were all living in small communauties, preaching their only religion. Then other cultures came, with others. That created a sentiment of distress and misunderstanding. What we have now is only a consequence of this past time.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Guessing: "You, however, seem fixated on translating all I say and do in a bad way."

The "left-pointing double angle quotation mark" is created on Windows with Alt+0171

Good to know. The whole sentence had me confused. Guess I fixated on the typo and couldn't discern a meaning from it.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Good to know. The whole sentence had me confused. Guess I fixated on the typo and couldn't discern a meaning from it.

I did the same thing at first The symbol is extremely distracting.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
2 words. negetive evidence.

russel's teacup, the invisible purple unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster

none can be disproven, and yet, is that any reaosn to think that they are real. its a logical fallacy me thinks.

Is anyone actually proposing they are real?

Is anyone claiming to have seen/heard/felt/met with any of the things you have mentioned?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Is anyone actually proposing they are real?

Is anyone claiming to have seen/heard/felt/met with any of the things you have mentioned?

No, but the list of deities and forces that people have claimed to feel is equally as impressive, and just as nonsensical.

Funny that you use the word "feel" btw. I doubt anyone ahs "met" Jesus except in a metaphorical sense (they 'felt' him). So you're basing your belief off of an intuitive assumption. Our intuitions and senses are some of the most notoriously unreliable faculties known to us, but people are willing to bet all on a faith that has no rational backing. Others have faith and feelings, equally as strong, in other deities. Or no deities. What does that say about their feelings? Or yours?

I actually met Jesus, but he didnt buy me back the beers I gave him so he was just a cheap ass.................jew????????????????????or cath, christian cold ass sob

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, but the list of deities and forces that people have claimed to feel is equally as impressive, and just as nonsensical.

Funny that you use the word "feel" btw. I doubt anyone ahs "met" Jesus except in a metaphorical sense (they 'felt' him). So you're basing your belief off of an intuitive assumption. Our intuitions and senses are some of the most notoriously unreliable faculties known to us, but people are willing to bet all on a faith that has no rational backing. Others have faith and feelings, equally as strong, in other deities. Or no deities. What does that say about their feelings? Or yours?

Can they prove that?

can they/you prove the otherwise

Originally posted by anaconda
I actually met Jesus, but he didnt buy me back the beers I gave him so he was just a cheap ass.................jew????????????????????or cath, christian cold ass sob Really? i met him too...........he was walking along smokin a dubie............I wouldn't pick him up though........I was told not to pick up strangers............. God, I could have been saved!!

K.

I just prayed to the Mormon God. He said that he doesn't know everything.

Ask him to have a convo with the Egyptian gods........they seem to be in the "know." LOL

RA RA RA!!

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Can they prove that?

can they prove which part?

Originally posted by ushomefree
This is still a very difficult concept to grasp.

It's very kind of you to tell everyone who disagrees with you that they "just don't get it".

Even I don't tell people they have to subscribe to my point of view in order to legitimately understand what I'm saying.

Originally posted by anaconda
can they/you prove the otherwise

Im not trying to prove anything...lol

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Im not trying to prove anything...lol

Your question was silly though. It dodged the point entirely, and didn't even clarify what exactly you were asking for.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Your question was silly though. It dodged the point entirely, and didn't even clarify what exactly you were asking for.

Not really, it was just a simple question.

Can they prove they have the same feelings?

I wasn't really addressing any point just saying...

Let's rewind back a few posts, will we. Somebody post the issue of this debate?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Not really, it was just a simple question.

Can they prove they have the same feelings?

I wasn't really addressing any point just saying...

what would qualify as proof to you?

obviously one cannot confirm what some person, including yourself or myself, felt at any time. This includes through memory, as it is highly subject to distortion.

For all intents, we cannot prove that you have any feelings at all outside of your subjective expression of such.

I'm willing to try and prove this, I just am interested in knowing what it would take to show you

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Not really, it was just a simple question.

Can they prove they have the same feelings?

I wasn't really addressing any point just saying...

So basically, you're asking if there's proof that people have faith in something other than the Christian God? I think a quick look through history will sufficiently answer your query.

In's post takes the subjective approach to this, which I think is what you're getting at in order to attempt to disprove them, but it's really not hard to see that your intuitions aren't the only ones around.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Not really, it was just a simple question.

Can they prove they have the same feelings?

I wasn't really addressing any point just saying...

I can tell you that the feeling I had as a Christian (holy spirit) is the same as the feeling I have as a Buddhist (chanting).

I asked God if it was his will and he said, "I created everything. What kinda ****ing question is that?"

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So basically, you're asking if there's proof that people have faith in something other than the Christian God? I think a quick look through history will sufficiently answer your query.

In's post takes the subjective approach to this, which I think is what you're getting at in order to attempt to disprove them, but it's really not hard to see that your intuitions aren't the only ones around.

I actually have nothing to say...

^ there is no hell.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ there is no hell.

But you always say this is Hell . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But you always say this is Hell . . .

Only when you are around.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Only when you are around.

ha-son Anti-intellectualism!

What does Hell look like? Who is there? The Hell of the Bible is one of these two pictures. Do you know which one? You might be surprised.


VISIT http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/


IMPORTANT FACTS


1.. Gehenna was a well-known locality near Jerusalem, and ought no more to be translated Hell, than should Sodom or Gomorrah. See Josh. 15: 8; II Kings 17: 10; II Chron. 28: 3; Jer. 7: 31, 32; 19: 2.


2.. Gehenna is never employed in the Old Testament to mean anything else than the place with which every Jew was familiar.


3.. The word should have been left untranslated as it is in some versions, and it would not be misunderstood. It was not misunderstood by the Jews to whom Jesus addressed it. Walter Balfour well says: "What meaning would the Jews who were familiar with this word, and knew it to signify the valley of Hinnom, be likely to attach to it when they heard it used by our Lord? Would they, contrary to all former usage, transfer its meaning from a place with whose locality and history they had been familiar from their infancy, to a place of misery in another world? This conclusion is certainly inadmissible. By what rule of interpretation, then, can we arrive at the conclusion that this word means a place of misery and death?"


4.. The French Bible, the Emphatic Diaglott, Improved Version, Wakefield's Translation and Newcomb's retain the proper noun, Gehenna, the name of a place as well-known as Babylon.


5.. Gehenna is never mentioned in the Apocrypha as a place of future punishment as it would have been had such been its meaning before and at the time of Christ.


6.. No Jewish writer, such as Josephus or Philo, ever uses it as the name of a place of future punishment, as they would have done had such then been its meaning.


7.. No classic Greek author ever alludes to it and therefore it was a Jewish locality, purely.


8.. The first Jewish writer who ever names it as a place of future punishment is Jonathan Ben Uzziel who wrote, according to various authorities, from the second to the eighth century, A. D.


9.. The first Christian writer who calls Hell Gehenna is Justin Martyr who wrote about A. D. 150.


10.. Neither Christ nor his apostles ever named it to Gentiles, but only to Jews which proves it a locality only known to Jews, whereas, if it were a place of punishment after death for sinners, it would have been preached to Gentiles as well as Jews.


11.. It was only referred to twelve times on eight occasions in all the ministry of Christ and the apostles, and in the Gospels and Epistles. Were they faithful to their mission to say no more than this on so vital a theme as an endless Hell, if they intended to teach it?


12.. Only Jesus and James ever named it. Neither Paul, John, Peter nor Jude ever employ it. Would they not have warned sinners concerning it, if there were a Gehenna of torment after death?


13.. Paul says he "shunned not to declare the whole counsel of God," and yet though he was the great preacher of the Gospel to the Gentiles he never told them that Gehenna is a place of after-death punishment. Would he not have repeatedly warned sinners against it were there such a place?




Dr. Thayer significantly remarks: "The Savior and James are the only persons in all the New Testament who use the word. John Baptist, who preached to the most wicked of men did not use it once. Paul wrote fourteen epistles and yet never once mentions it. Peter does not name it, nor Jude; and John, who wrote the gospel, three epistles, and the Book of Revelations, never employs it in a single instance. Now if Gehenna or Hell really reveals the terrible fact of endless woe, how can we account for this strange silence? How is it possible, if they knew its meaning and believed it a part of Christ's teaching that they should not have used it a hundred or a thousand times, instead of never using it at all; especially when we consider the infinite interests involved? The Book of Acts contains the record of the apostolic preaching,and the history of the first planting of the church among the Jews and Gentiles, and embraces a period of thirty years from the ascension of Christ. In all this history, in all this preaching of the disciples and apostles of Jesus there is no mention of Gehenna. In thirty years of missionary effort these men of God, addressing people of all characters and nations never under any circumstances threaten them with the torments of Gehenna or allude to it in the most distant manner! In the face of such a fact as this can any man believe that Gehenna signifies endless punishment and that this is part of divine revelation, a part of the Gospel message to the world? These considerations show how impossible it is to establish the doctrine in review on the word Gehenna. All the facts are against the supposition that the term was used by Christ or his disciples in the sense of endless punishment. There is not the least hint of any such meaning attached to it, nor the slightest preparatory notice that any such new revelation was to be looked for in this old familiar word."


14.. Jesus never uttered it to unbelieving Jews, nor to anybody but his disciples, but twice (Matt. 23: 15-33) during his entire ministry, nor but four times in all. If it were the final abode of unhappy millions, would not his warnings abound with exhortations to avoid it?


15.. Jesus never warned unbelievers against it but once in all his ministry (Matt. 23: 33) and he immediately explained it as about to come in this life.


16.. If Gehenna is the name of Hell then men's bodies are burned there as well as their souls. Matt. 5: 29; 18: 9.


17.. If it be the name of endless torment, then literal fire is the sinner's punishment. Mark 9: 43-48.


18.. Salvation is never said to be from Gehenna.


19.. Gehenna is never said to be of endless duration nor spoken of as destined to last forever, so that even admitting the popular ideas of its existence after death it gives no support to the idea of endless torment.


20.. Clement, a Universalist, used Gehenna to describe his ideas of punishment. He was one of the earliest of the Christian Fathers. The word did not then denote endless punishment.


21.. A shameful death or severe punishment in this life was at the time of Christ denominated Gehenna (Schleusner, Canon Farrar and others), and there is no evidence that Gehenna meant anything else at the time of Christ.


from http://www.tentmaker.org/books/TheBibleHell.html