In about 50 years ? will be phased out.
Options
Comments
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »he's the company that makes the system, and the video game system is advanced enough to choose if it wants to be faulty or work perfectly.
the video game does exactly what the programmer wants it to do. If it doesn't it's the programmer's fault and most likely, he'll have a short career if he keeps it up
See, you are trying to compare something of extremely limited AI (such as video games) to something as complex as a human being.
Poor analogy.
It wasn't my analogy, smart guy. It was yours.
Both computers and humans (as you clearly show) have limited "intelligence"
No actually, someone else had originally brought up the video game analogy, I just continued along for his sake.
If you knew it was a poor analogy from the get-go, why use it to formulate an argument? If you were omniscient, maybe you would know better. Maybe not, though cuz your ? supposedly creates beings and sends them to hell if they're faulty when he already knows the results beforehand
Lmao, catching feelings are we?
I countered a poor analogy so the person who used the poor analogy could understand. It wasn't even directed at you. YOU were the one who interjected and CONTINUED the poor analogy. So place the blame upon yourself.
I don't think you know what catching feelings means. I'm just letting you know that you shouldn't have used a poor analogy to formulate an argument. You should've let him know it was a poor analogy instead of continuing to use it. You used it for your argument and I went against that. When you didn't have anything else to say, you claimed it was a poor analogy. If it would have worked for you, you wouldn't have said anything about it being poor
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
What is free will.
What does omnipotent mean.
What does omnipresent mean.
We probably have different definitions which is leading to the confusion.
same definitions Doc is using. I don't think you understand how deep the ? goes for this imaginary being tangled up in a bunch of impossibilities which you can't understand but believe in. I'm not hating on you, though. Just answering questions.
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
However, I believe that through the hundreds of languages the Bible has gone through, a good portion of it has been lost in translation. Therefore I don't think it should be taken literally by those that believe in it.
"Skeptics love the KJV so much, one would think that they were still back in medieval England. Use of this translation is problematic these days, since it uses an archaic version of modern English, which doesn't necessarily mean the same things today as when it was translated over 400 years ago. In addition, the KJV was produced using a limited number of medieval manuscripts that did not represent the earliest Alexandrian set of manuscripts."
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. (Isaiah 45:7, NASB)
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, NIV)
"Isaiah 45:7 contrasts opposites. Darkness is the opposite of light. However, evil is not the opposite of peace. The Hebrew word translated "peace" is shâlôm, which has many meanings, mostly related to the well being of individuals. Râ‛âh, the Hebrew word translated "evil" in the KJV often refers to adversity or calamity. There are two forms of the word. Strong's H7451a most often refers to moral evil, whereas Strong's H7451b (the form used here) most often refers to calamity or distress. Obviously, "calamity" is a better antonym of "peace" than "evil.""
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evil.html -
Calamity is a form of evil. If peace is the well-being of individuals and ? is talking opposites here, he creates calamity (destruction) through which he couldn't give two ? about certain individuals and actually CREATES distress and calamity when he is supposed to be all loving
-
LMAO so you pick and choose what is lost in translation, smh
-
LMAO so you pick and choose what is lost in translation, smh
lol as usual. Either way he slices it, ? creates evil -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
I don't think you know what catching feelings means. I'm just letting you know that you shouldn't have used a poor analogy to formulate an argument. You should've let him know it was a poor analogy instead of continuing to use it. You used it for your argument and I went against that. When you didn't have anything else to say, you claimed it was a poor analogy. If it would have worked for you, you wouldn't have said anything about it being poor
Bolded is you giving me advice that you yourself didn't follow.
Italicized is further detailed advice that you yourself didn't do.
Underlined is proof that you didn't follow your own advice.
Bold and underlined is proof that I actually followed your own advice before you gave it to me, and I did it before you did.
Think before you post. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
What is free will.
What does omnipotent mean.
What does omnipresent mean.
We probably have different definitions which is leading to the confusion.
same definitions Doc is using. I don't think you understand how deep the ? goes for this imaginary being tangled up in a bunch of impossibilities which you can't understand but believe in. I'm not hating on you, though. Just answering questions.
You obviously didn't read my original post about how I'm an agnostic theist. Never said I believe in what Im arguing right now, I just enjoy debate.
And no one knows how deep the ? goes. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
I don't think you know what catching feelings means. I'm just letting you know that you shouldn't have used a poor analogy to formulate an argument. You should've let him know it was a poor analogy instead of continuing to use it. You used it for your argument and I went against that. When you didn't have anything else to say, you claimed it was a poor analogy. If it would have worked for you, you wouldn't have said anything about it being poor
Bolded is you giving me advice that you yourself didn't follow.
Italicized is further detailed advice that you yourself didn't do.
Underlined is proof that you didn't follow your own advice.
Bold and underlined is proof that I actually followed your own advice before you gave it to me, and I did it before you did.
Think before you post.
I didn't say it was a poor analogy, though. That's the difference. Follow your own advice and think before you post -
LMAO so you pick and choose what is lost in translation, smh
Nope. All i said was I dont think it should be taken literally. Look at my quote. I just threw into the fray the excerpt about what the evil reference in that scripture could really mean.
How could I know what was lost in translation? I dont have the original bible nor do i know any language other than English. However, to argue my point I can at least procure statements and research that back it up.Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Calamity is a form of evil. If peace is the well-being of individuals and ? is talking opposites here, he creates calamity (destruction) through which he couldn't give two ? about certain individuals and actually CREATES distress and calamity when he is supposed to be all loving
"Calamity is a form of evil"
I disagree. Calamity is the opposite of peace. Evil is not the opposite of peace. Calamity and evil do not go hand in hand. -
So why cant one make an absolute unhindered decision even though an omniscient being knows what the decision will be. It's not as if the being is forcing you to make the decision. Your very own definition of omniscient doesn't include "hindering or controlling another being's actions", it's just knowing what the action will be.
Because you cannot do anything that he hasn't foreseen well in advance. The "choice" of the so-called free agent is bound by the knowledge of this being. And the conflict doesn't only exist between us and Yahweh, but within himself as well. If he is omniscient, then even his own actions are known in advance, so it is literally impossible for him to deviate from the script (hence his omnipotence is in question). If he can deviate from said script, then his knowledge isn't absolute. Dealing in these types of absolutes makes things very problematic from a logical point of view.
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »I didn't say it was a poor analogy, though. That's the difference. Follow your own advice and think before you postJaded Righteousness wrote: »If you knew it was a poor analogy from the get-go, why use it to formulate an argument? If you were omniscient, maybe you would know better. Maybe not, though cuz your ? supposedly creates beings and sends them to hell if they're faulty when he already knows the results beforehand
It's cool though. It's not that serious. -
So why cant one make an absolute unhindered decision even though an omniscient being knows what the decision will be. It's not as if the being is forcing you to make the decision. Your very own definition of omniscient doesn't include "hindering or controlling another being's actions", it's just knowing what the action will be.
Because you cannot do anything that he hasn't foreseen well in advance. The "choice" of the so-called free agent is bound by the knowledge of this being. And the conflict doesn't only exist between us and Yahweh, but within himself as well. If he is omniscient, then even his own actions are known in advance, so it is literally impossible for him to deviate from the script (hence his omnipotence is in question). If he can deviate from said script, then his knowledge isn't absolute. Dealing in these types of absolutes makes things very problematic from a logical point of view.
"Knowing what will happen does not mean that we are preventing or causing that thing to happen.
The sun will rise tomorrow.
I am not causing it to rise nor am I preventing it from rising by knowing that it will happen.
Likewise, if I put a bowl of ice-cream and a bowl of cauliflower in front of a child, I know for a fact which one is chosen - the ice cream. My knowing it ahead of time does not restrict the child from making a free choice when the time comes. The child is free to make a choice and knowing the choice has no effect upon her when she makes it.
Our freedom is not restricted by ? 's foreknowledge; our freedom is simply realized ahead of time by ? ."
http://carm.org/if-? -knows-our-free-will-choices-do-we-still-have-free-will
Pretty good points in this article. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »I didn't say it was a poor analogy, though. That's the difference. Follow your own advice and think before you postJaded Righteousness wrote: »If you knew it was a poor analogy from the get-go, why use it to formulate an argument? If you were omniscient, maybe you would know better. Maybe not, though cuz your ? supposedly creates beings and sends them to hell if they're faulty when he already knows the results beforehand
It's cool though. It's not that serious.
I was going along with your thoughts. If you read back, you'll see I actually supported the analogy.
I agree, though. I don't think the Bible is very serious either
-
I disagree. Calamity is the opposite of peace. Evil is not the opposite of peace. Calamity and evil do not go hand in hand.
Peace is good. It is harmony. Calamity is evil. It is the opposite. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
This is an excellent article to read on that and it would say everything I would say:
http://carm.org/if-? -all-powerful-and-loving-why-there-suffering-world
A strong theme there is that ? gave us free will. And anything contrary to ? is evil. Therefore whenever we act against ? , we are committing evil. Therefore, that is where evil comes from.
Why isn't ? held accountable for the evil men that are born? He made the everything, did he not? That's like saying if company made a console that's faulty, that it's on the console not the company or the developer?
You can't surely agree with this.
He made everything, including creating free will. If he's omnipotent, he could've created us to be a slave army of robots, programmed to do his bidding. Free will is what lets us choose our actions, thoughts and beliefs. So basically, he's the company that makes the system, and the video game system is advanced enough to choose if it wants to be faulty or work perfectly.
I think people do what because they can not because we have free will in planted in us. Why create such an evil character if you know they're going to hell?
You think everyone "evil" is evil from birth? You think ? came out the ? with a vengeance for Jews? No, usually something happened in their life to instill whatever hatred was manifested.
For me to sit here and act like I know WHY ? created people or what his plan is would be stupid lol. But whose to say that everyone ? creates is supposed to go to heaven, but the choices they make with free will may lead them to hell?
But ? knows it all. Why let that ? live on? ? is a ? up creator I've ever heard of way worse than any guy in history.
I put most of my sims in pools and delete ladders. Or let them burn in house fires.
In roller coaster tycoon I picked people up and threw them into the lake. Also built faulty rollercoasters on purpose to see people crash.
Im a pretty ? up creator.
But it was all through my free will. -
"Knowing what will happen does not mean that we are preventing or causing that thing to happen.
The sun will rise tomorrow.
I am not causing it to rise nor am I preventing it from rising by knowing that it will happen.
Likewise, if I put a bowl of ice-cream and a bowl of cauliflower in front of a child, I know for a fact which one is chosen - the ice cream. My knowing it ahead of time does not restrict the child from making a free choice when the time comes. The child is free to make a choice and knowing the choice has no effect upon her when she makes it.
Our freedom is not restricted by ? 's foreknowledge; our freedom is simply realized ahead of time by ? ."
http://carm.org/if-? -knows-our-free-will-choices-do-we-still-have-free-will
Pretty good points in this article.
As always, these analogies are flawed.
The sun functions independently of any human. We didn't create it and couldn't control it if we wanted to. Yahweh, on the other hand, is directly responsible for our existence, and is willing to circumvent free will when it suits his desires (E.G. Pharaoh in Exodus).
In the situation with the child, you have a good idea what they will choose based on the prior experience. That said, you can't be 100% certain that the child will choose the ice cream for the simple fact that you don't have knowledge of the future. Yahweh, on the other hand, not only knows what the child will choose, but when they will choose, how they will eat it, when they will finish it, and when they will ? it out.
These analogous always fall short, because there isn't anything anyone can think of that compares to an omnipotent, omniscient being.
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
And I disagree, as written in my previous post. We are at a standoff. -
"Knowing what will happen does not mean that we are preventing or causing that thing to happen.
The sun will rise tomorrow.
I am not causing it to rise nor am I preventing it from rising by knowing that it will happen.
Likewise, if I put a bowl of ice-cream and a bowl of cauliflower in front of a child, I know for a fact which one is chosen - the ice cream. My knowing it ahead of time does not restrict the child from making a free choice when the time comes. The child is free to make a choice and knowing the choice has no effect upon her when she makes it.
Our freedom is not restricted by ? 's foreknowledge; our freedom is simply realized ahead of time by ? ."
http://carm.org/if-? -knows-our-free-will-choices-do-we-still-have-free-will
Pretty good points in this article.
As always, these analogies are flawed.
The sun functions independently of any human. We didn't create it and couldn't control it if we wanted to. Yahweh, on the other hand, is directly responsible for our existence, and is willing to circumvent free will when it suits his desires (E.G. Pharaoh in Exodus).
In the situation with the child, you have a good idea what they will choose based on the prior experience. That said, you can't be 100% certain that the child will choose the ice cream for the simple fact that you don't have knowledge of the future. Yahweh, on the other hand, not only knows what the child will choose, but when they will choose, how they will eat it, when they will finish it, and when they will ? it out.
These analogous always fall short, because there isn't anything anyone can think of that compares to an omnipotent, omniscient being.
The only difference between me knowing the child will choose the ice cream and a omniscient being knowing the child will eat the ice cream is the amount of certainty we have. NOT the amount of free will the child has.
Our difference is, you think that because the being knows all, you think our choice isnt free.
I think even though the being knows all, our choice is still our own.
Idk... We might have to agree to disagree -
The only difference between me knowing the child will choose the ice cream and a omniscient being knowing the child will eat the ice cream is the amount of certainty we have. NOT the amount of free will the child has.
Our difference is, you think that because the being knows all, you think our choice isnt free.
I think even though the being knows all, our choice is still our own.
That's it in a nutshell.
I view omniscience and determinism to be mutually inclusive, as the only way the former would be possible is because of the latter.Idk... We might have to agree to disagree
Yep, looks that way.
-
"Knowing what will happen does not mean that we are preventing or causing that thing to happen.
The sun will rise tomorrow.
I am not causing it to rise nor am I preventing it from rising by knowing that it will happen.
Likewise, if I put a bowl of ice-cream and a bowl of cauliflower in front of a child, I know for a fact which one is chosen - the ice cream. My knowing it ahead of time does not restrict the child from making a free choice when the time comes. The child is free to make a choice and knowing the choice has no effect upon her when she makes it.
Our freedom is not restricted by ? 's foreknowledge; our freedom is simply realized ahead of time by ? ."
http://carm.org/if-? -knows-our-free-will-choices-do-we-still-have-free-will
Pretty good points in this article.
As always, these analogies are flawed.
The sun functions independently of any human. We didn't create it and couldn't control it if we wanted to. Yahweh, on the other hand, is directly responsible for our existence, and is willing to circumvent free will when it suits his desires (E.G. Pharaoh in Exodus).
In the situation with the child, you have a good idea what they will choose based on the prior experience. That said, you can't be 100% certain that the child will choose the ice cream for the simple fact that you don't have knowledge of the future. Yahweh, on the other hand, not only knows what the child will choose, but when they will choose, how they will eat it, when they will finish it, and when they will ? it out.
These analogous always fall short, because there isn't anything anyone can think of that compares to an omnipotent, omniscient being.
The only difference between me knowing the child will choose the ice cream and a omniscient being knowing the child will eat the ice cream is the amount of certainty we have. NOT the amount of free will the child has.
Our difference is, you think that because the being knows all, you think our choice isnt free.
I think even though the being knows all, our choice is still our own.
Idk... We might have to agree to disagree
Not possible with ? , you thinking you have a choice is an "illusion" -
Gotdayum, theists are sonning themselves from all directions out chea.
-
(BB = big bang)
Travel back to the BB the universe becomes smaller and smaller, into a dense black hole. Time comes to a stop. You can't get to a time before the BB because there was no before the BB. We've found something that doesn't have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. There is no creator because there was no time for a creator to have existed.
Did ? create the universe? The question makes no sense; time didn't exist before the BB so there is no time for ? to make the universe in. It's like asking for directions to earths edge, the earth doesn't have an edge it is a sphere. So looking for it is a futile excersise.
(did my best to remember how this was said)
Actually went back and this is exactly what was said, how the ? I remembered it word for word is beyond me. It's some show I keep recorded, Stephan Hawkings Universe shows.. -
Astronaut_King wrote: »@blackxchild ? your mother. Now ill answer your question. Do I believe in the arc yes I do. Do I believe the whale story no I don't. The bunker has been translated and rewritten so many times its.hard to know what to believe. There is a saying that the winner writes the history. Well say you can read and you want to control what is happening in your town and you tell history how you want it to be remembered. You die and the only history remembered are the stories with the lies and omissions. Those are passed on and the.cycle repeats itself. Who can say what happened...like I said I like to have adult conversations. Badgering gets us nowhere gentleman...and I use that term loosely
Then where or how can you begin to believe? If there's the argument, "science isn't factual and is lies", then how canyou believe the bible after admitting the bolded? You're admitting you know it's tampered with throughout it's translation, so what parts do you believe and don't believe? Just the ones that are too "far fetched"?
You can't state it's a "truth" as "gods word", because it isn't and most people will admit that bolded. So you can't use it to prove anything, especially over science, when it's not reliable.
FOH. -
fiat_money wrote: »Gotdayum, theists are sonning themselves from all directions out chea.
and the "non belivers aint?"
they are borderline trolling..
