|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
posted December 01, 2009 07:54 PM |
|
|
Off course! Always interested in other thruths, so to speak
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 07:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As I said, I believe God exists outside time, thus there is no "future" or "past" for him.
This is actually a wise belief, if anything, because time is either:
1) a measure of change in space, no dimension. (quantum mechanics)
2) a fourth dimension (relativity, which is IMO wrong -- it means "time" can "change", when time actually represents change -- unless, that is, time is a spatial dimension but then shouldn't we be able to go backwards?)
which means, since if God exists he is obviously not bound to 3D space, then he must be outside of time too.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 01:36 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:37, 02 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
Misunderstanding, I was refering to you for no reason disputing my claim that what we find logic, depends on our imagination.
I can imagine my dog instantly sprouting wings and saying, "Hey dude, I'm gonna fly over to Pizza Hut. Want me to pick up something for you?" That does not mean that it would be logical for me to think such a thing would ever happen.
Quote:
Define goodness.
Reflect and comment on my definition as well, please:
Being "good" is to trying to generate maximum amount of freedom, i.e. getting what one wants, and do so equally for everyone.
Goodness has nothing to do with you getting what you want. And making sure other get what they want is not always a good idea either. If a child molester lives next door and wants to rape my children I'm not going to make sure that he rapes my children. That would not be a good thing to do.
Heh, it is hard to give a short definition of "good." A good person is a selfless person. He will love others and himself. He will seek the well-being of others and himself, without being selfish in seeking his own well-being. He will not turn a blind eye to evil but will stand against it.
Consider Jesus. He lived a selfless life. He helped others. He spoke out against evil, even when it costed him personally. He sought the well being of others, even to the point of self-sacrifice. He would not be intimidated into silence, but spoke the truth that others may not have wanted to hear. He also drove evil people out of his temple.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And what claims of mine do you claim have been disproved? And I have certainly been addressing your arguments and proving them illogical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could show you, but that'd be three tripple quotes which would cloud up the thread, and for what reason, to show something I find completely obvious during out recent debate? I can PM it to you, if you want, but with the current thread structure, I'm not going on a "you said... he said... you said" roll here.
I do not engage in PM debates.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God has all-power. Again, silly things like making a rock both all blue and all-green at the same time are a common irrational fallacy some people love to try to put forward.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you believe it's impossible for more colours than the current ones to exist?
If not, who're you to limit these colours in how we'd describe them?
Yes, if a new element were formed from existing elements perhaps. But that has not the slightest thing to do with a single object being entirely blue and entirely green at athe same time. That is not intrinsically possible.
Quote:
Why? Cause it says so in a book you don't believe in?
No, but it does say so in the Book of Truth even though you don't believe in it. 
I already answered your question. I already showed God and Allah are described differently in the Bible and Qu'ran. There can't be two beings who are identical to the one described in the Bible.
Quote:
Here I believe my recent idea works a lot better.
So you say God cannot create another supreme being?
I already answered that. But I'll do so again. God is the Supreme Being by definition. There can't be two Supreme Beings. Supreme means in some way superior to. So only one can be Supreme. Only one will have "all power."
God has also stated that there will never be another god. So God placed the limitation on himself that he would not create another god. Like I said, being all-powerful means God has no outside limitations to do things that are intrinsically possible.
No amount of power can make a square to be a circle at the same time. That is not intrinsically possible. That is a fallacy of contradiction.
Furthur, Qu'ran depicts Allah lying to his own prophet (I quoted the verse.) It would be against the character of God to created a being that is a liar from the moment of his creation.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have the freedom to do all things that are humanly possible for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You seriously believe that?
Yep. What is humanly possible for me. All people have differing abilities. I am not "unfree" because I can't run a marathon as fast as the world record holder.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are free to rape others if you chose to
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe you can rape an elephant to be honest.
You might say you'd use toxics to make it go to sleep.
Then I'd go back to your own example of you not being free to fly, I can fly with the right technology, so you see, untill you defind what it's you exactly mean with the words you use in this part of the debate, don't expect me to understand your points.
That quote of mine was in response to your claim that "Freedom -> The ability to get what you want."
The fact that you can't easily rape an elephant (assuming you want to rape an elephant) does not mean you are not free. The fact that you can't fly without mechanical aid (assuming that you want to fly without mechanical aid) does not mean you are not free.
Freedom has not the slightest thing to do with getting want you or that there will be no consequences for your actions.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, God being all powerful does not obligate him to make eternity pleasant for everyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course not, but him being good does however.
Explain why God's goodness would obligate him to make sure Joseph Stalin had a wonderful time throughout eternity.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain why God not making it possible for you to rape someone for all eternity means he is not all-powerful and good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was your own example of illogic Elodin, you're mixing it with the example of combined all-powerfullness and being good. That's a big no no, but if you really want an answer then here goes: [And since you've not defined the words yet, I'll use my own definition, you'll have to look at the previous post if you want to find out what they mean again]
I don't mind if someone has the impression of raping someone else, as long as that someone else still have complete freedom, i.e. does not have this impression, unless wanting to have this impression.
By impression I include all the ways we can experience the world.
OK, so now, your are saying that God if someone wants to rape you for all of eternity that if God is good he will make ther person think that he is raping you for all of eternity?
Previously you seemed to be saying (on page 28) God should have made us have lots of bodies on different planes and be unaware of some of the bodies so someone could rape us for all of eternity if they wanted to so we would not know we were being raped and there would be no consequences for them raping us.
But still, with your current explanation, explain why God is not good unless he makes someone think he is raping you for all of eternity just because that is the person's desire? Why should a good God make the person think that he is engaging in an evil deed that the rapist has pleasure in for all of eternity?
Quote:
However now you mention it, I believe actually that since God decided how the world should be, then not making it into a paradise for everyone from the start, for no reason, eventhough no reason culd justify it, already means that God can't be truely good.
God gave us free will. You can chose to do good or to do evil. Your actions affect you and people around you. The fact that you have choices mean you are not a robot. God giving your the ability to make choices does not mean God is not good.
Quote:
Quote:
I mean how can you top infinite freedom in the period that've already gone? A world in this way would clearly be superior to the current world, and eventhough you've tried to limit God in power and Doomforge in knowledge, the fact is, at the dawn of time, when the entire universe were created, all-powerfullness and all-knowing could not be limited by logic, nor an amount of possible outcomes, simply because these where not choosen at that time (otherwise it'd not have been the dawn of time).
I have not limited God's power. I said he has the power to do whatever he wants to do. There is nothing outside himself that prevents him from doing anything that is intrinsically possible. A square circle and such nonsense is not intrinsically possible. Such foolishness is a fallacy of contradiction.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! So you would really let your son live in your house, smoke dope in your living room and rape your daughter every day?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Define the word accept, because I don't think we've a common understanding of said word. Just to make certain that you don't forget it during looking it up, or definiting it, I write:
Not accept, but forgive. You write continue [every day]. For me "not accept" and "continue" do not belong together.
Oh, ok, I misread what you wrote. But you would your son live in your house knowing his desire was to beat up your wife and rape your daughter? You said you would not kick him out.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but mankind does need boundaries
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why?
Because he knows so little.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
just as children do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To protect them from the consequences, if there was no consequences, do you really think it'd be so? [And don't start with the rape stuff again, no negative consequences would make you being raped impossible, because that in itself would be a negative consequence, however it does not mean others can't have the impression of raping you, just like we can via light create an illusion of everything, does not mean that the person that's created an illusion of experience it]
Oh, but I will start with the rape again. Actions have consequences. The fact that actions have consequences give a meaning and purpose to our actions and our lives and matures us.
Guidance does not just protect us from consequences, it helps us become a mature and productive member of the family and of society.
I still fail to see why God is not good because he won't give someone the impression that he is raping you for all of eternity.
Quote:
Only when well argumented for, otherwise it's tyranating.
You see, I could as well start to force others to do different stuff for their own good, without explaining, do you really think they'd see me as their saviour, or as some tyrant?
God does not force you to follow his guidance. Even though he says not to steal the possessions of others you can still chose to steal.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also defined all-power as the ability of God to do whatever he wants to do if you'll go back and read my definition.
Being all powerful is being able to do anything that power can do. Being all powerful means God has no limitations outside himself that are intrinsicly possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose you made it bold because it's important to you that I reply, or notice this part.
I remember this part very well, so what if God wants to do something that's beyond the limitation outside God self that are intrinsicly possible?
You evidently did not understand what I said. God can do anything that is intrinsically possible but will not go against his character. It is not intrinsically possible for a geometric figure to be an exact square and an exact circle at the same time. It is not intrinsically possible for you to be in the act of being raped and not be in the act of being raped at the same time by the same person.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is like saying oh, there can't be a square circle so God is not all-powerful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't think God can make you the impression of you seeing a square cirlce?
[/quote
I said a geometric figure cannot be both entirely a square and entirely a circle. That is not intrinsically possible. It is possible for a person to be delusional and perceive a square to be a circle. However, he cannot at the same instant in time perceive the object to only a square and at the same moment time perceive the object to be entirely a circle. If it were possible (and it is no) it still would not make the geometric figure both entirely a square and entirely a circle.
Quote:
This clearly limit Gods power, because it means God can create a being more powerfull than God, which would, no matter what God did, destroy God for all eternity, just as well. This being is thereby more powerfull than God, and God is not all-powerfull anymore.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah, just more irrational word games that I've seen before. It is like saying oh, there can't be a square circle so God is not all-powerful. God is the Supreme Being by definition. There can't be two Supreme Beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-no, definitions are made by humans, what God decide we can only measure, so no such definition can exist, unless you can measure it.
I was talking about the definition of supreme. Supreme carries the meaning of superior to in some way. There can't be two gods who are both supreme. There can be only one Supreme Being.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There can't be two Supreme Beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So God can't haven't got said power? You're limiting God even more.
But I understand why, because that's the only way you can safe God as being good,
No, I'm not limiting God. You evidently did not understand what I wrote. If you understand what supreme means, you have to say there can only be one supreme being.
God has also stated that there will never be another god. So God placed the limitation on himself that he would not create another god. Like I said, being all-powerful means God has no outside limitations to do things that are intrinsically possible.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God has also stated that there will never be another god.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bible states that.
Hello. You have been trying to prove that the Bible is illogical in its description of God. So far you have failed miserably. And the Bible is God's Word, so yes, God said that.
Quote:
Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So God placed the limitation on himself that he would not create another god.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removing more power.
No, there are no outside limitations on what God can do. He can do anything that is intrinsically possible but will not go against his character because he is not only all-powerful, he is good.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said, being all-powerful means God has no outside limitations to do things that are intrinsically possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limiting one self to not be able to safe the mistakes one did in order to make anything better in a vast attempt to still be percieved as good, stupid, but good.
[/quote
God does not make mistakes, thankfully.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No amount of power can make a square to be a circle at the same time. That is not intrinsically possible. That is a fallacy of contradiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your experience of the world is dependent on the ways you use to measure, i.e. your senses. Do you honestly think that via the proper technology and the ressources required, that you could not get the illusion of seeing what you believed was impossible?
I thought we were talking about actual things, not illusions. A square is not also a circle. That is not intrinsically possible.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your intellect, emotions, and actions are all interconnected. Yes, there is environmental stimulus, but you determine the decisions you will make in response to the environment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell that to the people with psychical diseases.
When did we switch to start discussing people who have psychiatric problems? Although the majority of people who have psychiatric problems are in control of their actions. A person who has a phobia can often talk to a mental health professional and get to tthe root cause of the problem and deal with it and be cured of the phobia. But that is a different topic.
A normal person is not controlled by environmental stimulus. He has the ability to chose his actions. The fact that environmental stimulus exists does not mean that you don't have free will.
____________
Revelation
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 02:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you believe it's impossible for more colours than the current ones to exist?
That's only the human brain limitation. There are invisible frequencies of light btw. A whole lot of them. They don't have a "color", that is just the illusion provided by the brain when it perceives certain frequencies.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 03:22 AM |
|
|
For a moment, I was inclined to ask Elodin why he thinks "all blue" and "all green" are mutually exclusive, which implies that he thinks that there is some absolute definition of either one. Yesteryear, that might have been the basis of an interesting philosophical (and scientific) discussion.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 02:20 PM |
|
|
@Shares
I'd like to question, what can we really know with absolute certainity, because what is absolute certain, must be true.
The world around is something you could say we measure, but our methods of measuring gives us no guarantee of what we measure to be really there.
All in all, we can't know if we're just a brain in a jar, being exposed to this simulated word.
I think it's Decartes who said "I think therefore I am", and I understand this as I measure, therefore I can be certain I exist.
It is like saying, at least there's interaction, eventhough it might be fake, so we can be certain that we truely exists, that's we're consciouss, or in this thread I should probably use the term soul.
So that's something I believe we can be certain about, but not really anything else, and define truth in these terms seems a bit meaningless, because then nothing can really be true, as far as I know (if anyone disagrees, I'm very interested in your arguments).
So let's look at it a bit deeper, and in the spirit of this thread we'll use God as the "absolute viewer", God decides how the world goes, decides the laws of nature, etc. and in reality Gods world is the highest world, where everything is percieved is also true.
Then we go down to our world (which is merely a simulation performed from the world of God), can we know if it's a simulation? No I don't believe we can, unless something that goes against causality happens. So if causality is in intact, one would think, that it doesn't matter if there's a world above ours, from which we're simulated, because it does not interfer in any other way, than how it decided to from the dawn of time.
However there's a big problem in this, causality depends on memory, if memory can be tampered with, we can always be tricked into believing causality, and therefore we could in principle be "attacked" at any moment, without knowing so, because our memory would just change so we'd not know.
So in this sense, any absolute truth cannot exist, unless we could find a way to prove we either are at the "top world", or that we get there and secures our existance.
So how I define the everyday term of truth is a relative truth, it's the truth as you percieve it, and that will be the moment of measurement to be exactly.
And that's how it goes, I believe. The measurer is an absolute truth, for without the measurer no measurement would take place, while the measurement, or the world we percieve, is a relative truth.
So truth is defined as the measurement we make, and truth only makes sense for the moment of time asked, i.e. we can't know for absolute certainity that if a stone is dropped it'll fall, but this become true for the moment of observation, when you see it falls to the ground.
Anyway it's just some thoughts of mine, in something I find very interesting.
And also, in that perspective, I disagree with your idea of truth is what we make it. That for me, more sounds like knowledge, but I should probably define that term before I start using it, as our definition might be different.
@Elodin
Thoughts about the current debate:
I think I started asking you direct questions, or should we call them attacks, to early, as I've not got the purpose I wanted to happen, and this illustrates it all to well:
Quote:
You have been trying to prove that the Bible is illogical in its description of God.
Well no, I haven't, what I've been trying is to get your perception of why you believe in what you do, and then I wish to question it, to make certain it's logical sound, or if you have some doubt, and then we could talk a bit about those.
Something along the line of this would actually be more true to my purpose of starting this debate:
Quote:
So you believe the word of God is what the bible says, how can you make that sufficient likely so I'd also believe that, and how likely would you claim it is? How did you come to this conclusion yourself?
But one of the problems with asking such a question is that you seem to start using a lot of words that you've not defined, and when I try to reply, we find out our definition of these words differ.
I've answered your latest post down below, and so far, if I should give a resume, then you've refused that what you find illogical can be possible. Likewise you don't see my point of being good requires you to do everything in your power for those you're being good towards.
If you agree or disagree does not matter much, I think it'd probably be better if at least I try to focus the debate towards what I really wants to ask you, and in stead of reexplain myself, rather retry with more accurate questions.
Well anyway, here's my answer, but I'd prefer that we'd stick to the original purpose as written above:
Definitions required:
Quote:
And making sure other get what they want is not always a good idea either. If a child molester lives next door and wants to rape my children I'm not going to make sure that he rapes my children.
I need your definition of rape, I think we've to be very specific with the terms we use, or we risk not being able to understand eachother.
Quote:
selfless person
Quote:
love
Quote:
well-being
Quote:
selfish
Quote:
evil
Before I can understand your definition of good, all these terms you must also define, please.
Quote:
No, but it does say so in the Book of Truth even though you don't believe in it.
Is the book of truth the bible?
Does the bible directly say what everyone is (in this example, says what Allah is)?
[That'd require an amount of pages unbelieveable, so I doubt it.]
Quote:
Freedom has not the slightest thing to do with getting want you or that there will be no consequences for your actions.
Not in your definition of the word, but it has in mine, and until you present your definition, the quoted text makes as little sense to me, as if you'd talked a different langauge.
Quote:
God should have made us have lots of bodies on different planes and be unaware of some of the bodies so someone could rape us for all of eternity if they wanted to so we would not know we were being raped and there would be no consequences for them raping us.
Well no, I don't think that's me saying that God should do that if God was good. Rather I believe that was me illustrating that the perception can differ from two persons, and what really matters is what you percieve, what you experience, cause that's what you measure, so that's the world to you.
Quote:
Why should a good God make the person think that he is engaging in an evil deed that the rapist has pleasure in for all of eternity?
Since you've not defined the terms, I'll once again use my own terms, and I'll once again write what I mean by these terms.
Consciousness -> Yourself, what you probably would call your soul, that's the one who measures.
Free Will -> Your ability to choose what you want to do.
Freedom -> Your ability to get exactly what you want.
Lust -> The combination of genes and environment to produce counter free will gradients.
A consciouss, or if you want, an existing soul, in a body is what we in this example calls a person.
Through the means of our body, most of all our brain, we've some tools of which we can interact with the world around us.
Memory means we can keep track of time, we can therefore make sense of the world through causality, that's if we decide to believe our memory to be true.
The ability to think, means we can express what we want to ourself, or to say, we can find out what we want.
Our body can then perform the action we want.
So we find what we want to do, and then we do it, but before being able to do it, then the level of our free will dictates how much of what we want to do we actually do.
Because all these are tools for us, they're exposed to errors as well, and when other parts of your body interacts with your tools, you can get results you didn't want.
Like lust, lust makes us sometime do things we do not want, it's what hinders free will in being at 100%.
But it's not as black & white as I make it, all these interact somehow as well, what you think is not always what you want, what you once wanted you can be in doubt about if it's what you really want, etc.
However I define here, what you want, as your ultimate want, that thing you truely want to do.
So now we've what the person wants, but can we know that what the person does is also what the person wants? No we cannot, what we percieve is the actions of said person, these actions are the combination of free will and lust, so we can't know from the actions alone.
However let's assume we've this all-powerfullness and as the first thing, we make certain everyone have 100% free will.
Now for some reason, the ultimate want of someone is to rape someone else, eventhough that this is partly illogical, as rape and sex derives from our lusts to begin with, I'll stick with your example as I've done so far, eventhough I could just plainly call it a non valid example.
So if you've the all-powerfullness to make every want come true (i.e. no one wants to be raped, but some people wants to rape, make both of them come true, because rape is defined through the experience of the perciever and not through what the other part experiences (as the first part can't know that), this is possible) then not doing so, you cannot claim that you're good.
Quote:
If you understand what supreme means, you have to say there can only be one supreme being.
Yes I seem to misunderstood you on that one, you mean supreme as the one with most power, and you don't believe two can have equal power, correct?
Quote:
And the Bible is God's Word
How do you know that?
On the matter of Free Will:
Quote:
What is humanly possible for me.
What I don't think, is that you've complete free will. For having that, stuff like letting your emotions getting the better of you should never have happened, which I doubt.
Quote:
Quote:
However now you mention it, I believe actually that since God decided how the world should be, then not making it into a paradise for everyone from the start, for no reason, eventhough no reason culd justify it, already means that God can't be truely good.
God gave us free will. You can chose to do good or to do evil. Your actions affect you and people around you. The fact that you have choices mean you are not a robot. God giving your the ability to make choices does not mean God is not good.
I'm not mentioning free will, you're. Do you imply that for a paradise to exist it requires of the people of the paradise to limit their own free will, so that eventhough they truely want something else, they can only follow a certain narrow path of actions?
Because then we're back at the all-powerfullness and lack of imagination. Can't you imagine a world that can be a paradise despite what actions people decide to do, simply by altering the experience depending on the perciever of the person who makes the choice?
Quote:
But you would your son live in your house knowing his desire was to beat up your wife and rape your daughter?
Yes I would let him stay, and I'd not characterize the information as knowledge, cause when it comes to love ones, and negative things about them, I need a much higher likelyness of truth.
Also, I'd find it a failure of my part if it ever got to such a point, and I'd choose to believe that it's more about lack of free will, than a want to actually do this, which partly is self given as those things you mention are lust based.
Which mean I'd help him train his lust, but make it like a game, then we could practice together, I'd be a good role model.
However most of all, it depends on how I got this information, if it was something that had happened, then I'd require of him that I used my time with him, not giving him near as much free time as usually, if it however was something I'd heard from others, then I'd not care the slightest, because I don't care what opinion someone have, nor what lusts they've, eventhough it might do harm if it comes out, as long as it does not come out in actions.
I.e. it doesn't matter if you fancy someone that you believe you're morally obligied not to fancy, as long as you do not actually perform the action that would make it come into the real world.
Quote:
A normal person is not controlled by environmental stimulus.
It's a question about degree, we all have a responsibility to be our own commander, but it doesn't mean that we'll always prevail in being that.
Don't normal people go out and become drunk to the degree of a black out where they've no idea if they actually where in control in the moment of action (pre black out)? They know they can't trust their memory and hope that they'd control and did what they wanted to do, yet often you'll find yourself have done a lot of stupid things.
Why unexplained boundaries is not a good thing:
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but mankind does need boundaries
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why?
Because he knows so little.
I disagree, then mankind needs information that can be measured to be likely enough to be true, to be accepted as knowledge, or in short we need knowledge, not being limited.
I think the analogy to a child is satisfying, because like God is seen as a superior intellect, so is the adult in comparision to a child.
I believe that if a child was sufficiently informed and had this information made likely enough to be true, then any child can be as smart as an adult. This does also mean that any child should have the same rights as an adult.
The thing is however, most often we give these right at a random age limit of 18 years old, but it's actually more about knowledge, because all in all it's about how you act more than anything.
Then one could argue that the child is too fragile, but lack of power should never an excuse to perform more lack of power.
Likewise some would argue that it's a shame to throw away the child years, I say that it's a misunderstanding to see it like that, everyone should be equal, if child years are better, then make these rights that make them better also be a part of our life, when possible.
Quote:
Quote:
Only when well argumented for, otherwise it's tyranating.
You see, I could as well start to force others to do different stuff for their own good, without explaining, do you really think they'd see me as their saviour, or as some tyrant?
God does not force you to follow his guidance. Even though he says not to steal the possessions of others you can still chose to steal.
God decided what consequences there was from different actions to begin with, no matter if you agree or disagree (at least those we haven't made artificially).
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So God placed the limitation on himself that he would not create another god.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removing more power.
No, there are no outside limitations on what God can do. He can do anything that is intrinsically possible but will not go against his character because he is not only all-powerful, he is good.
Would it be evil to create another God?
On the matter of truth and perception:
Quote:
I thought we were talking about actual things, not illusions.
But what is an actual thing? Is it not so, that all the information we can get is only through what we experience, and we only experience the world through the tools we've from our body (brain included)?
Note
I hope you, Elodin, or anyone else who might read this, can use these answers to something. If not, I really think we should go back to the purpose I wanted of our debate to begin with, agree?
@Corribus
Quote:
Yesteryear, that might have been the basis of an interesting philosophical (and scientific) discussion.
I think it could be a very interesting debate/discussion, I've often wondered how one could ever define a colour to, let's say, a blind person.
Why yesteryear?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 03:59 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:02, 02 Dec 2009.
|
@OFFS
Quote:
Quote:
Yesteryear, that might have been the basis of an interesting philosophical (and scientific) discussion.
I think it could be a very interesting debate/discussion, I've often wondered how one could ever define a colour to, let's say, a blind person.
Well, forget blind; there are problems with color definition for sighted people also. The argument is that something can't be "pure blue" and "pure green" at the same time. But such an argument demonstrates a misunderstanding of what color is. There is no such thing as "pure blue" - or at least, I challenge you or anyone else to define what it is. So to say that something cannot be blue and green at the same time is not only very wrong - it makes no sense.
I guess it's not that relevant to the current discussion except to point out that Elodin's scientific knowledge is pretty elementary.
Quote:
Why yesteryear?
I'll let the statement stand without further explanation. Given my comments in the Feedback thread as context, I'm sure you can figure out what I mean.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 07:09 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 19:20, 02 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have been trying to prove that the Bible is illogical in its description of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well no, I haven't, what I've been trying is to get your perception of why you believe in what you do, and then I wish to question it, to make certain it's logical sound, or if you have some doubt, and then we could talk a bit about those.
I will show from your own words you have indeed been doing that very thing.
Quote:
On page 28 you stated:
Quote:
I define religion as ideas that cannot be justified through a logical proces, neither made likely to be true. I.e. it depends entirely on an irrational belief, however it is still considered true.
......
God is part of religion, because God cannot be put any likelyness on.
The bible is likewise something I put as part of religion, because the statements of the bible are illogical.
In the afterlife thread (page 2)you said:
Quote:
It's about that I state, given there exist an entity (God) that's all powerful (can do everything, even if it's a paradox, etc. (as we're not trying to argue wether or not God actually exists or is possible here)), and given this entity stands for being "good" in the way I believe most people understands being "good", then I claim that everyone must go to heaven, otherwise God would either fail to be all powerful or to be "good".
.....
I attempt to show, that given there's a God and there's a heaven, then all must go there, if God is both "good" and all powerful, likewise heaven is the "ultimate" place to be (where everyone wants to be).
And you have certainly been arguing in this thread that an all-powerful and good God would give everyone everything he wants even if it means letting him rape someone [who has lots of bodies on various planes] or makes him think he is raping the person for all of eternity.
And you stated the Bible is illogical. You have certainly been attacking the concept of the Bible that God is both all-powerful and good and saying it is illogical.
Quote:
So you believe the word of God is what the bible says, how can you make that sufficient likely so I'd also believe that, and how likely would you claim it is? How did you come to this conclusion yourself?
I have already answered that question twice. The first time was when you asked why I follow God instead of Allah or Odin.
Quote:
Quote:
Define goodness.
Reflect and comment on my definition as well, please:
Being "good" is to trying to generate maximum amount of freedom, i.e. getting what one wants, and do so equally for everyone.
Quote:
Goodness has nothing to do with you getting what you want. And making sure other get what they want is not always a good idea either. If a child molester lives next door and wants to rape my children I'm not going to make sure that he rapes my children. That would not be a good thing to do.
Quote:
I need your definition of rape, I think we've to be very specific with the terms we use, or we risk not being able to understand eachother.
Nonconsensual sex. There is also statutory rape for an underage child, but let's just stick to the concept of one adult engaging in another adult who does not consent to the sex.
Now explain why a God who is both all-powerful and good has to make it possible for you to either rape someone for all eternity or has to make you think that he is indeed raping the person for all of eternity.
Quote:
Quote:
Define goodness.
Quote:
Heh, it is hard to give a short definition of "good." A good person is a selfless person. He will love others and himself. He will seek the well-being of others and himself, without being selfish in seeking his own well-being. He will not turn a blind eye to evil but will stand against it.
Consider Jesus. He lived a selfless life. He helped others. He spoke out against evil, even when it costed him personally. He sought the well being of others, even to the point of self-sacrifice. He would not be intimidated into silence, but spoke the truth that others may not have wanted to hear. He also drove evil people out of his temple.
Quote:
I need your definition of rape...selfless person...love...well-being...selfish...evil...
Before I can understand your definition of good, all these terms you must also define, please.
You asked me to define goodness and I did, in commonly understood terms. Reading my two paragraphs about goodness gives an adequate picture of a good person that any random person [who speaks English and is sane] would understand.
Quote:
Quote:
Why? Cause it says so in a book you don't believe in?
Quote:
No, but it does say so in the Book of Truth even though you don't believe in it.
Is the book of truth the bible?
Does the bible directly say what everyone is (in this example, says what Allah is)?
[That'd require an amount of pages unbelieveable, so I doubt it.]
The Bible states all other "gods" are false gods. And I already quoted a verse in Isaiah where God says there never were any other gods and never will be any other gods.
Quote:
Quote:
Free Will -> The ability to choose what you want.
Freedom -> The ability to get what you want.
Quote:
I reject your definition of freedom. You definition of freedom is irrational. I am a free person. No matter how much I want to fly, I still can't fly. No matter how much I want to breath underwater, I still can't.
I have the freedom to do all things that are humanly possible for me. The fact that I can't create universes or travel back in time and outside of time and space and become the one true God does not mean that I am not free. I am a human being, not the one true God.
You are free to rape others if you chose to and are willing to suffer the dangers and consequences of doing do. That fact that there are consequences in no way means you don't have the freedom to do so.
Sorry, freedom of action does not mean freedom from consequences.
Quote:
Not in your definition of the word, but it has in mine, and until you present your definition, the quoted text makes as little sense to me, as if you'd talked a different langauge.
Freedom is the ability to attempt to take the actions you want to take that are possible for you given your abilities and resources.
You have the free will to chose to rape someone. You hve the freedom to try to rape someone. The fact that there may be consequences for you if you try to rape someone [like the person may pull a gun out and blow your head off] doesn't mean that you did not have freedom.
Quote:
Quote:
God should have made us have lots of bodies on different planes and be unaware of some of the bodies so someone could rape us for all of eternity if they wanted to so we would not know we were being raped and there would be no consequences for them raping us.
Quote:
Well no, I don't think that's me saying that God should do that if God was good. Rather I believe that was me illustrating that the perception can differ from two persons, and what really matters is what you percieve, what you experience, cause that's what you measure, so that's the world to you.
Well, you seemed to be saying that on page 28 and then switched to the argument of God should just make someone think he is raping someone for all eternity. But people can go to the page and read it for themselves.
Quote:
Quote:
Why should a good God make the person think that he is engaging in an evil deed that the rapist has pleasure in for all of eternity?
Quote:
....
So if you've the all-powerfullness to make every want come true (i.e. no one wants to be raped, but some people wants to rape, make both of them come true, because rape is defined through the experience of the perciever and not through what the other part experiences (as the first part can't know that), this is possible) then not doing so, you cannot claim that you're good.
You did not explain why you claim God is not good for not making someone wants to rape you for all eternity think that he is actually raping you for all of eternity.
You only stated that if God does not cater to the whims of rapists he is not good but gave no reason why this is so. Why does God have an obligation to make sure that evil people gratify their evil desires?
Quote:
Yes I seem to misunderstood you on that one, you mean supreme as the one with most power, and you don't believe two can have equal power, correct?
No, we have been discussing the concept of the Bbile that God is both all-powerful and good. There can not be two beings with the description of the God of the Bible for reason that I have already stated at least three times.
Quote:
Quote:
God has also stated that there will never be another god.
Quote:
The bible states that.
Quote:
Hello. You have been trying to prove that the Bible is illogical in its description of God. So far you have failed miserably. And the Bible is God's Word, so yes, God said that.
Quote:
How do you know that?
I've already answer that several time. I believe the first time was in the same post where I responded to your question as to why I follow God and not Allah or Odin.
When you said the religion is irrational and the Bible is illogical I asked for proof you did not offer any points. Perhaps you can explain how you know the Bible is not the Word of God.
Quote:
What I don't think, is that you've complete free will. For having that, stuff like letting your emotions getting the better of you should never have happened, which I doubt.
The fact that there are birds, trees, cars, little children, television, or Oprah does not mean that you don't have free will. There is an environment. You interact with the environment. You chose how you will interact with the environment. [Like I said earlier, there are involuntary reflexes for such things as touching a hot burner on a stove.]
The fact that an environment exists does not mean that you don't have free will.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However now you mention it, I believe actually that since God decided how the world should be, then not making it into a paradise for everyone from the start, for no reason, eventhough no reason culd justify it, already means that God can't be truely good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God gave us free will. You can chose to do good or to do evil. Your actions affect you and people around you. The fact that you have choices mean you are not a robot. God giving your the ability to make choices does not mean God is not good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not mentioning free will, you're. Do you imply that for a paradise to exist it requires of the people of the paradise to limit their own free will, so that eventhough they truely want something else, they can only follow a certain narrow path of actions?
OK, I won't use the term "free will" in rephrasing the question. Why do you claim God is not good and not justified in making a world where there are consequences for your actions?
To reword what I said, God has given us free will. There are pleasant and unpleasant consequences for choices we make. For a paradise to exist poeple would chose to act in love towards God and their fellow man.
Quote:
Because then we're back at the all-powerfullness and lack of imagination. Can't you imagine a world that can be a paradise despite what actions people decide to do, simply by altering the experience depending on the perciever of the person who makes the choice?
I can imagine a world where God creates beings that are simultaneously a cat, a dog, a frog, a horse, an elephant, a monkey, a snake, a cow, a fsh, and a human being. But the fact that God did not create this world that way does mean that God is not all-powerful nor does it mean that he is not good.
God created us on a world where there are consequences for our actions. This adds meaning to our lives and helps us grow. The fact that God created things his way does not mean he is not good or that he is not all-powerful.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you would your son live in your house knowing his desire was to beat up your wife and rape your daughter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I would let him stay, and I'd not characterize the information as knowledge, cause when it comes to love ones, and negative things about them, I need a much higher likelyness of truth.
What do you mean you would not know? Let's say every day, several times a day, you see your son beat up your wife, then see him go and smoke some crack in the living room and then see him go and rape your daughter.
You would honestly allow that son to continue to live in your house?
Quote:
lso, I'd find it a failure of my part if it ever got to such a point, and I'd choose to believe that it's more about lack of free will, than a want to actually do this, which partly is self given as those things you mention are lust based.
I would not blame a father for the actions of his child unless the father allowed the actions to continue in his house when he found out about them or he taught his son that is was ok to commit the actions.
Quote:
However most of all, it depends on how I got this information, if it was something that had happened, then I'd require of him that I used my time with him, not giving him near as much free time as usually, if it however was something I'd heard from others, then I'd not care the slightest, because I don't care what opinion someone have, nor what lusts they've, eventhough it might do harm if it comes out, as long as it does not come out in actions.
Let's say you walk in on it every day, so you know first hand, that it is true. As for not giving your son as much free time to beat up your wife, smoke dope, and rape your daughter, he doesn't listen to you. He tells you to "%%%% off, you old *******. Stop interfering with my freedom."
You would really allow such a son to continue living in your house?
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A normal person is not controlled by environmental stimulus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a question about degree, we all have a responsibility to be our own commander, but it doesn't mean that we'll always prevail in being that.
Don't normal people go out and become drunk to the degree of a black out where they've no idea if they actually where in control in the moment of action (pre black out)? They know they can't trust their memory and hope that they'd control and did what they wanted to do, yet often you'll find yourself have done a lot of stupid things.
No, normal people don't get drunk [regularly] to the point of black outs. That is called an alcoholic.
Quote:
I believe that if a child was sufficiently informed and had this information made likely enough to be true, then any child can be as smart as an adult. This does also mean that any child should have the same rights as an adult.
Nah, even if somehow a child could have all of the "knwledge" of an adult, he would not have the wisdom of an adult because he has virtually no life experiences.
Quote:
God does not force you to follow his guidance. Even though he says not to steal the possessions of others you can still chose to steal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God decided what consequences there was from different actions to begin with, no matter if you agree or disagree (at least those we haven't made artificially).
Yes, God said there will be consequences for a person stealing, but that does not stop anyone from stealing if they desire to steal.
Quote:
Would it be evil to create another God?
It would not be possible for the reasons I have stated several times.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No amount of power can make a square to be a circle at the same time. That is not intrinsically possible. That is a fallacy of contradiction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your experience of the world is dependent on the ways you use to measure, i.e. your senses. Do you honestly think that via the proper technology and the ressources required, that you could not get the illusion of seeing what you believed was impossible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought we were talking about actual things, not illusions. A square is not also a circle. That is not intrinsically possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But what is an actual thing? Is it not so, that all the information we can get is only through what we experience, and we only experience the world through the tools we've from our body (brain included)?
Yes, but our perception of what is real does not determine what is real. If a person is delusional and sees an elephant when he looks at a mouse, that does not mean that the creature is both an elephant and a mouse.
Quote:
But such an argument demonstrates a misunderstanding of what color is. There is no such thing as "pure blue" - or at least, I challenge you or anyone else to define what it is. So to say that something cannot be blue and green at the same time is not only very wrong - it makes no sense.
I guess it's not that relevant to the current discussion except to point out that Elodin's scientific knowledge is pretty elementary.
Perhaps you should take some elementary level science refresher courses. It is sad that one who threw around his "scientific credentials" in another thread seems not to know such basic things as color being a property of matter.
Given a constant light source, and a constant object, the object will always "be" the same color. The properties of the object determine what spectrum of light it will reflect/emit/transmit and what spectrums it will absorb, as I stated. The "color" that a person sees is based on the light that is reflected into his eyes. The light reacts with the light receptors
The same person cann't perceive an object to be entirely "blue" and entirely "green" at the same instant. If my car is parked in my garage under a constant life source, it will always be "grey" in color. Well, the paint would age over time and change in that regard, but if I looked at the car under the same conditions in the samae relative time frame, I would always see a gray car. The properties of the car would be the same. It would reflect the same band of electromagnetic waves.
Color:
Clicky
a visual attribute of things that results from the light they emit or transmit or reflect; "a white color is made up of many different wavelengths of light"
Color is an INTENSIVE PHYSICAL PROPERTY of matter.
intensive properties includes:
*solubility
*hardness
*electrical conductivity
*odor
*luster
*color
*malleability
*ductility
An intensive quantity does not depend on the amount of the substance. Ex: density Also since the color of a substance does not change if i take 1g or 100 g of a substance the color is an intensive property.
When I said an object can't be "entirely blue" and also "entirely green" at the same instant in time, I meant any given "section" of the object will not have two differnt "color" properties at the same instant in time.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 07:27 PM |
|
|
An object is not a "color", an object, or rather molecule, absorbs and reflects certain frequencies. What is reflect is what you see as "the object's color". Furthermore if you only "shine" it with frequencies that are absorbed by said object (example: green light on a 100% red apple), it will be BLACK, because nothing is reflected (green is absorbed).
Although yes you are right that at a given instant, the molecule configuration can only reflect and absorb one specific system of frequencies.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 08:04 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 20:07, 02 Dec 2009.
|
Elodin -
As I said, you have an elementary understanding of color - heck, physics in general. You can continue to take that as an insult if you wish, and sputter and spit about it, or you can actually take it as the fact that it is and let me teach you something.
You can start to learn by thinking about this simple question.
What is "entirely blue"? What is "entirely green"?
Quote:
if I looked at the car under the same conditions in the samae relative time frame, I would always see a gray car
Are you so sure? In your Newtonian understanding of physics, probably so. Would you like a lesson in statistical quantum mechanics?
Probably not. I know you're not interested in learning anything. At least, your actions lead me to think that.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 10:05 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 22:06, 02 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
An object is not a "color", an object, or rather molecule, absorbs and reflects certain frequencies. What is reflect is what you see as "the object's color". Furthermore if you only "shine" it with frequencies that are absorbed by said object (example: green light on a 100% red apple), it will be BLACK, because nothing is reflected (green is absorbed).
Quote:
Isn't that what I said? Color is a property of an object. Whean a person says "my car is grey" he is not calling his car a color. He is saying his car has the property of being grey.
As I said, objects emit/absorb/reflect different different spectrrums of light.
And I'm talking about "normal lighting conditions on the planet earth." But I DID say the object would be the same color under a constant light source assuming no changes to the object or the observer.
Quote:
Although yes you are right that at a given instant, the molecule configuration can only reflect and absorb one specific system of frequencies.
That was the whole point of the illustration. Like it being impossible to be both a perfect square and a perfect circle at the same time.
Quote:
What is "entirely blue"? What is "entirely green"?
I already answered that, but I like TheDeath's wording better.
Quote:
Although yes you are right that at a given instant, the molecule configuration can only reflect and absorb one specific system of frequencies.
Is that "exact" enough for you? I think a common person on the street would have understood what I said. No object will have two completely different sets of properties at the same moment in time.
Quote:
Are you so sure? In your Newtonian understanding of physics, probably so. Would you like a lesson in statistical quantum mechanics?
No thank you. Every day I turn on the light [a relatively constant light source] in my garage and my car is grey. I have never seen my car to be both grey and purple at the same instant in time. For tht matter, i have never seen my car to be purple.
Every morning when I go out to get the paper I see my neighbor's car and it is the same color. For that matter, my little house dog does not oscillate in color either. And I've never seen people blinking blue/green/purple/gold....
Quote:
Probably not. I know you're not interested in learning anything. At least, your actions lead me to think that.
It seems that you can't learn from another. After all, your supposedly superior "scientific credentials" make you above the lowly "unlearned masses." Or so it seems you think.
An object will not have multiple molecular configurations at the same instant in time.
Oh, I'm curious. Are you saying color is not considered to be a property of matter.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 10:08 PM |
|
|
Corribus was talking about quantum mechanics, meaning the "small" world of atoms. There, measurements are very uncertain, so without the measurement you usually can't establish if a molecule is a given color or something else (i.e predict) with 100%, I think.
In macro size the randomness evens out (for some reason). And btw I think the correct term in my 'wording' is "set" (a list), not "system", sorry for that.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 11:01 PM |
|
|
@Elodin
Quote:
Perhaps you can explain how you know the Bible is not the Word of God.
I don't have to, I'm not the one who's convinced of anything (not that it is, nor that it isn't), but I'm interested in how you could take a stance in the matter in the first place. Can't you share with me how you made it sufficient likely to believe in?
Quote:
Why do you claim God is not good and not justified in making a world where there are consequences for your actions?
Not exactly what I'm saying, I'm talking about negative consequences and it's because, with my limited imagination, I could make it better if I was all-powerfull. I'd simply create a world where negative consequences did not exist, it'd not be illogical, because logic did not exists at the dawn of creation.
Also I must admit I might have been a bit to hasty, because we can't know if God just didn't know any better, and still had the best intentions.
And that's why it's important before you believe anything that it's properly explained to you, why it's so.
Still, do you agree, that if someone with the exact same ressources as God (all-powerfull) could do a better job (i.e. right here and now make a better world for all of us, being so despite what we might decide), without removing free will, freedom, etc. then this "someone" would have done a better job than God, and God must either have been lacking this knowledge (not knowing better), or must have not had the best intention in mind (lack of being good)?
Quote:
I can imagine a world where God creates beings that are simultaneously a cat, a dog, a frog, a horse, an elephant, a monkey, a snake, a cow, a fsh, and a human being. But the fact that God did not create this world that way does mean that God is not all-powerful nor does it mean that he is not good.
But is that a paradise to you?
Quote:
God created us on a world where there are consequences for our actions. This adds meaning to our lives and helps us grow. The fact that God created things his way does not mean he is not good or that he is not all-powerful.
What if a better job could be done? What would you conclude from that?
Quote:
Yes, God said there will be consequences for a person stealing, but that does not stop anyone from stealing if they desire to steal.
No, but God could just have put bind when equiped until otherwise decided by owner on, I mean they can do that in computer games after all.
What I'm questioning is, why did God make it possible for something to be stolen in the first place? Why not just give us the ressources for endless copies and a mean of creation that did not require anything from us in the first place?
Quote:
Yes, but our perception of what is real does not determine what is real. If a person is delusional and sees an elephant when he looks at a mouse, that does not mean that the creature is both an elephant and a mouse.
For him, it is an elephant in the moment of observation.
Here's a thought experiment I made for you, imagine that the delusional state is infinite long, now how can you know you're delusional?
Well, others might tell you that the observe something else, if these aren't part of your delusional state. However, you can't know if these persons actually are the delusional ones right?
Oh wait you could just go over there and notice you can put your hand straight through that elephant, that's not a property of an elephant, so you're probably being delusional, but what if every single of your senses were affected to the point of you not being anything else than a brain in a jar stimulated into observing a world through electrical impulses? You wouldn't be able to know then.
And that's where my point comes in, if the perception, or delusional state like you call it, is good enough, then that's the real world to you.
Irrelevant Stuff:
Quote:
I will show from your own words you have indeed been doing that very thing.
Defining our debate, it means what I've been writing to you, not what I've been writing to others. Writing to others I might have had different intentions. It does not really matter though, I don't care what you think my intentions are if it does not stop you from participating in the debate.
Quote:
Well, you seemed to be saying that on page 28
I.e. you misunderstood my point.
Now if you'd actually reflect over my point I think it'd do this debate a lot of good.
Quote:
Yes I seem to misunderstood you on that one, you mean supreme as the one with most power, and you don't believe two can have equal power, correct?
Quote:
No [...] There can not be two beings with the description of the God of the Bible for reason that I have already stated at least three times.
Well, in that case, I still haven't understood those reasons, because you say no to me each time I ask if I got it correct.
I can show you what I recall, then you can correct me if you wish -
Something about God deciding to not have the power to create God, you explained this was needed to be good, and then as I asked why it was evil, you just told me that supreme meant the highest, and that could only be one, and now you say no to that as well?
Looking at the rest of the thread I'd decided not to write like that, but here I'm truely confused, so my apologies.
Quote:
You would honestly allow that son to continue to live in your house?
But everyday is not possible, as I'd not accept it.
What I meant by not know, is that if I was told by someone it was so, then I'd not believe it, because it's impossible to make likely enough. If it was someone I cared for who told me it, I'd however act in the exact same way as if I had interfered in the first place, via what I wrote earlier. It'd be a failure on my part if something like that happened.
Quote:
Let's say you walk in on it every day
That's impossible, if I walked in and interfered once, I'd not allow it to happen again, as I'd not accept it, I'd use the time necessary like I wrote in the previous post.
Quote:
he doesn't listen to you.
I'm certain he does, I'd never let it come to such a situation in the first place. I'd always take good care of my kids, no matter what, coming to such a situation, where it should be extremely easy to show I'm right, and he'd still not listen, is not a question about him being independent, it's a clear illustration of me having failed as a father in the first place.
Quote:
You would really allow such a son to continue living in your house?
Yes I would, and I hopefully will never let it come to a place where my son would turn out into that.
Of course, if we're talking about sudden change, then I wouldn't really know what to do, as it would clearly be sign of some kind of illness.
Please Repeat:
Quote:
Quote:
So you believe the word of God is what the bible says, how can you make that sufficient likely so I'd also believe that, and how likely would you claim it is? How did you come to this conclusion yourself?
I have already answered that question twice. The first time was when you asked why I follow God instead of Allah or Odin.
I don't recall an answer that convinced me to see the bible as being likely to be true. I'm sorry if I missed, in that case please rewrite it, if I however did not miss it, then I think you're lacking showing why it's sufficient likely to be believed.
More Accurate Definition Please:
Quote:
Nonconsensual sex.
Thank you, but the definition is not clear enough for me yet, sorry if you find me stupid for that reason.
I need from you how it is from both perspectives, both from the raper and the rapist, and I want from you also why each perspective isolated is wrong. Can you do that, you might convince me, but I doubt no misunderstanding will once again occur.
Quote:
You did not explain why you claim God is not good for not making someone wants to rape you for all eternity think that he is actually raping you for all of eternity.
Well, I did, but then realised you probably understood rape different as my saying of perspective did not seem to influence you. That's why I asked you to define rape, and why I still wants you to define it even more accurate than you've done so far, see above.
Quote:
You asked me to define goodness and I did, in commonly understood terms.
I'm sorry, but without you defining these terms, without using other terms that needs to be defined, I cannot show you why the example you gave yourself does not make God good.
When you've come with a sufficient definition, I'll challenge it to the point where we come to an agreement, and then we can continue with me explaining why your examples shows God as not being good. If we do not come to an agreement, then we'll just have to agree upon disagreing of course, and talking about goodness makes no sense.
Quote:
Freedom is the ability to attempt to take the actions you want to take that are possible for you given your abilities and resources.
What would you then call the final result, i.e. the consequence of said action?
Because as I understand you, you say free will -> choose to do
Freedom -> that what you choose actually is something you can try
In that sense freedom can't change, because you can always try, only your abilities and your ressources can change, so how do you define the degree of you getting what you want? Just as an example, free speech, it's something you can do, I always see it as a freedom that it has no consequence, but what do you call that?
On The Matter Of Free Will:
Quote:
The fact that an environment exists does not mean that you don't have free will.
I never claimed that, I'm talking about the degree of free will, i.e. not 100% free will. It's not either you have or you don't, just look at addicts, and tell me they've completely free will.
Quote:
No, normal people don't get drunk [regularly] to the point of black outs. That is called an alcoholic.
Depends on environment, where I come from, it's called having a good time in a certain age. Not that I agree with it.
An alcoholic is however someone who's addicted to alcohol, that's irrelevant to blacking out.
Quote:
Nah, even if somehow a child could have all of the "knwledge" of an adult, he would not have the wisdom of an adult because he has virtually no life experiences.
I don't hope an alien race, whose average age is the same multiple as from child to adult for humans, invades and have your viewpoint.
What I'm saying is that your terms are relative, and therefore not really something I can use to very much, without further backing up of your claims.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 02, 2009 11:21 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 02:39, 03 Dec 2009.
|
Elodin -
May I suggest that, if you are determined to use dozens of quoted passages in each post, that you at least take the time to properly format your quotes. Reading dozens of quotes is painful enough as it is.
Quote:
That was the whole point of the illustration. Like it being impossible to be both a perfect square and a perfect circle at the same time.
That analogy doesn't work at all. "Square" and "Circle" have rigorous mathematical definitions. "Blue" and "Green" do not.
Death did not define "entirely blue" or "entirely green", and neither have you.
And in any case, Death's statement:
Quote:
Although yes you are right that at a given instant, the molecule configuration can only reflect and absorb one specific system of frequencies.
Has nothing to do with "blueness" or "greenness".
Quote:
No object will have two completely different sets of properties at the same moment in time.
What about a single electron?
Quote:
No thank you. Every day I turn on the light [a relatively constant light source] in my garage and my car is grey. I have never seen my car to be both grey and purple at the same instant in time. For tht matter, i have never seen my car to be purple.
That's because you are looking at a time-average. Have you ever looked at the photons scattered off your car one at a time?
Quote:
It seems that you can't learn from another. After all, your supposedly superior "scientific credentials" make you above the lowly "unlearned masses." Or so it seems you think.
Is this what the OSM has really become? It used to be, that if someone said something, and someone else who had some expertise in the matter came along and said, "No, actually, you're wrong." the original poster would often as not say something like, "Could you explain more? I'm interested in your point of view." There was a real willingness to learn and share information, a desire for intellectual growth. Go back and look at some of the old threads here and you will see this. Not now, and not you, Elodin - what you say is, "Maybe you should go take some elementary science refresher courses."
My credentials are my credentials; I offer them in real life because I worked hard for them and because most people will at least listen to what I say after I present them. I rarely mention them here in any official way. But since you bring up credentials, here's some thoughts about credentials: I have taught several university classes, and one does not succeed in teaching without learning a bit of humility and the limits of one's own knowledge, credentials notwithstanding. I've had students stump me with questions I didn't know the answer to and amaze me with insights into Chemistry I'd never considered before. No, my credentials don't mean I'm unfallable or that I know everything, or even close to everything; in fact the more I learn the more I realize I have yet to learn. But my credentials do mean that I might know something about physics and chemistry, perhaps even, if I may be so bold to suggest, more than you do, and as a result you might actually be able to learn something from me if you were willing and interested. And hell, if you or others WERE willing, and we *did* have a good discussion, *I* might actually learn something, too. When I started to teach my very first quantum mechanics class, I didn't know snow about quantum mechanics, but I sure thought I did at the time. One of the biggest surprises to me at the end of the course was how much *I* had learned while teaching the class. I learned more quantum mechanics teaching one year of an entry level class than I did in several years as a student in advanced classes. I will tell you that one of my greatest passions is learning new things, and thus it should be no surprise that another one of my greatest passions is teaching what I know to others, because really learning and teaching are the same process. For that matter, that's why I am here, at this place. To teach. To learn. Why are you here? Nevermind that. By the same token, I like to think I know a few things about history, as I've have read a lot on the subject, but if a Ph.D. in English History corrected a statement I made about Britain in the 15th century, and told me my knowledge of the subject was elementary, then I would be inclined to listen to what they said and, at least, respect their expertise in the matter, even if I ultimately disagreed with their interpretation of historical events. And I certainly wouldn't be so sophomoric as to tell them to go read an elementary history text.
I have nowhere said that I am morally superior to anyone because of my scientific credentials. Saying that someone is ignorant on an issue - be it scientific or whatever - is not making a moral statement about them. You posts indicate that you *ARE* ignorant on scientific issues. That's not an insult, a jab, a punch to the gut, a slap to the face, or a kick to the groin. Ignorance is not the same as stupidity; it's simply a lack of knowledge on a specific subject. And a lack of credentials does not necessarily equate to ignorance. I don't know what your credentials are and I don't really care. I know many people who lack the credentials I have but are very well informed on scientific issues. And do you know how they became well informed? By listening. By learning. By asking questions. By wanting to know more, and by being able to identify good sources of information. By being willing to to admit to themselves and to everyone else that they don't know everything, and in fact not even a little tiny smidgen of everything. By being good students. By being good teachers. Credentials will usually earn a person a faster track to respect - sometimes not deserved - but it's not the only way to get respect. You don't need credentials to be a good poster or to be a poster who commands a lot of respect from the community. And if you find yourself not being respected, well, maybe you should ask yourself why that is. I would venture that the goodwill I have earned here (I am, of course, putting myself out on a limb here) has nothing whatsoever to do with my credentials; nor with any specific content of my beliefs or opinions. Respect isn't earned through what you know, or what you believe. The latter may influence the amount of TIME it takes to earn respect from believe you believe other things, but among most reasonable, intelligent people, beliefs are no ultimate, insurmountable barrier to the earning of respect or friendship. Respect is earned, first and foremost, through your method of presentation of what you know and what you believe, and, ultimately, how you treat and deal with other people. Put another way, at least for me, respect is earned through your willingness to kindly teach me what you know, and willingly learn from me what I have to teach.
Well, anyway, that was more than I intended to write about that. Because they are here, I will answer the two statements below, but I don't really have much of an interest in dialoguing further on the matter with someone who has clearly no interest in learning anything.
Quote:
An object will not have multiple molecular configurations at the same instant in time.
Are you so sure? Does an electron have an absolute position?
Quote:
Oh, I'm curious. Are you saying color is not considered to be a property of matter.
Color is an interpretation your brain makes from a time-average of photons of varying wavelengths that are detected by sensors in your eyes. It's a visual property. The scattering, absorption or emission of light are properties of matter - but that's not really the same thing as color. In common parlance, of course, it is a physical property of matter. But it's not a rigorous, specific property that can be easily defined or measured. For example, we refer to the sky as being blue, and we do the same for blueberries and bluebells and blue-birds and blue bubblegum, but they are all different "types" of blue. So "blue" isn't a very useful scientific term, and "pure blue" or "perfect blue" or "exactly blue" has not real meaning whatsoever. Which is sort of the whole point. It's tangential to the discussion of religion. But your statement about "exactly blue" and "exactly green" doesn't really mean anything. Saying a material can't be "exactly blue" and "exactly green" at the same time makes about as much sense as saying a material can't be "exactly kibblesmucken" and "exactly perkupopple" at the same time. The contention is that "exactly green" and "exactly blue" are mutually exclusive properties, but insofar as "exactly green" and "exactly blue" are no more rigorously defined than kibblesmucken and perkupopple, you might as well be saying the latter. I certainly understand what point you were making, and the point may even have some merit, but there's a certain value in being rigorous in your arguments, and your argument was anything but rigorously correct. If you want to make a logical proof, you'll have to do better.
@Death
Quote:
In macro size the randomness evens out (for some reason).
It's just that we perceive an average of the statistical distribution of localized, individual events. An object which fluoresces blue can technically emit light of ANY wavelength over the whole spectrum, and if you were to measure individual photons one at a time, you would indeed see the occasional red, orange, UV, microwave, whatever. But by an large most of them are going to be "blue" photons (around 450 nm, say), and so we say the object is "blue". But someone who observes the object for only a fraction of a second and happens to see (by chance) a red photon might conclude that the object is actually red. Would they be wrong?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 12:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's just that we perceive an average of the statistical distribution of localized, individual events. An object which fluoresces blue can technically emit light of ANY wavelength over the whole spectrum, and if you were to measure individual photons one at a time, you would indeed see the occasional red, orange, UV, microwave, whatever. But by an large most of them are going to be "blue" photons (around 450 nm, say), and so we say the object is "blue". But someone who observes the object for only a fraction of a second and happens to see (by chance) a red photon might conclude that the object is actually red. Would they be wrong?
To be honest, I had no idea. I thought spectography (when you look at the spectrum of an atom to see what material it is) was pretty accurate. But it seems it's not very accurate for very short instants.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 12:45 AM |
|
|
I don't thin any other page in the history of HC has had this many quotes. Holy **** guys oO. MY EYES BURN!!!
This post also serves as an emergency break for your retinas.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 01:07 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 01:14, 04 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
To be honest, I had no idea. I thought spectography (when you look at the spectrum of an atom to see what material it is) was pretty accurate. But it seems it's not very accurate for very short instants.
It doesn't have anything to do with the act of measurement. Even with a "perfect" instrument there is still a finite linewidth (distribution of photon energies) of Lorentzian functionality. It is a quantum mechanical effect, related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 05:25 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 05:27, 04 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
Corribus was talking about quantum mechanics, meaning the "small" world of atoms. There, measurements are very uncertain, so without the measurement you usually can't establish if a molecule is a given color or something else (i.e predict) with 100%, I think.
In macro size the randomness evens out (for some reason). And btw I think the correct term in my 'wording' is "set" (a list), not "system", sorry for that.
Yes, but I was not really talking about subatomic particles. I don't know a bout you, but my eyes are not sharp enough to see them.
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps you can explain how you know the Bible is not the Word of God.
I don't have to, I'm not the one who's convinced of anything (not that it is, nor that it isn't), but I'm interested in how you could take a stance in the matter in the first place. Can't you share with me how you made it sufficient likely to believe in?
Oh, and you certainly have made claims. You claimed religion is irrational and the Bible is illogical. I quoted your statements and asked for you to back up your claims and you did not.
How may times do I have to say why the Bible is the Word of God? I've answered it several times. Please go back to where I posted the answer previously.
Quote:
Quote:
:
Why do you claim God is not good and not justified in making a world where there are consequences for your actions?
Not exactly what I'm saying, I'm talking about negative consequences and it's because, with my limited imagination, I could make it better if I was all-powerfull. I'd simply create a world where negative consequences did not exist, it'd not be illogical, because logic did not exists at the dawn of creation.
Explain why a world without consequences for actions is better than a world with consequences for actions.
You have stated repeatedly that God is not good because there are negative consequences for some actions. Explain why God making some things have negative consequences means God is not good. I've asked the question several times and you are not answering why negative consequences means God is not good.
Quote:
Still, do you agree, that if someone with the exact same ressources as God (all-powerfull) could do a better job (i.e. right here and now make a better world for all of us, being so despite what we might decide), without removing free will, freedom, etc. then this "someone" would have done a better job than God, and God must either have been lacking this knowledge (not knowing better), or must have not had the best intention in mind (lack of being good)?
No. God created a world with consequences. Consequences add meaning to our actions. There would not be negative consequences if everyone did the right thing.
It does not logicly follow that because there are consequences to actions tht God is not good or is not all-knowing.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Because then we're back at the all-powerfullness and lack of imagination. Can't you imagine a world that can be a paradise despite what actions people decide to do, simply by altering the experience depending on the perciever of the person who makes the choice?
[/quuote]
I can imagine a world where God creates beings that are simultaneously a cat, a dog, a frog, a horse, an elephant, a monkey, a snake, a cow, a fsh, and a human being. But the fact that God did not create this world that way does mean that God is not all-powerful nor does it mean that he is not good.
God created us on a world where there are consequences for our actions. This adds meaning to our lives and helps us grow. The fact that God created things his way does not mean he is not good or that he is not all-powerful.
But is that a paradise to you?
No, but you were talking about imagination. See, you could make a blanket statement and say "oh, existing in multiple forms would be better so God is not good because I don't exist in multiple form." That is what you are doing. "Oh, there are consequences for my actions so God is not good."
I've asked you repeatedly why consequences for actions means God is not good but so far you have been dancing around the question.
Quote:
What if a better job could be done? What would you conclude from that?
I have no reason to believe that a world without consequences would be a better place. Explain to me no consequences for actions is good.
Quote:
No, but God could just have put bind when equiped until otherwise decided by owner on, I mean they can do that in computer games after all.
What I'm questioning is, why did God make it possible for something to be stolen in the first place? Why not just give us the ressources for endless copies and a mean of creation that did not require anything from us in the first place?
God made it possible for you to make choices so you would not be a robot. You get to chose to do good or evil.
Why do you have to work for stuff? It is good for character and adds to purpose and meaning in life. You can hardly conclude that because God made a world where you have to work for a living that God is not good.
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, but our perception of what is real does not determine what is real. If a person is delusional and sees an elephant when he looks at a mouse, that does not mean that the creature is both an elephant and a mouse.
For him, it is an elephant in the moment of observation.
No it is not. The mouse can't trample him to death. The mouse is not an elephant.
Quote:
Here's a thought experiment I made for you, imagine that the delusional state is infinite long, now how can you know you're delusional?
Well, others might tell you that the observe something else, if these aren't part of your delusional state. However, you can't know if these persons actually are the delusional ones right?
Oh wait you could just go over there and notice you can put your hand straight through that elephant, that's not a property of an elephant, so you're probably being delusional, but what if every single of your senses were affected to the point of you not being anything else than a brain in a jar stimulated into observing a world through electrical impulses? You wouldn't be able to know then.
And that's where my point comes in, if the perception, or delusional state like you call it, is good enough, then that's the real world to you.
The fact that he thought the mouse was an elephant did not mean that it is a mouse and an elephant at the same time. It does not mean that the mouse IS in reality an elephant to him. It means that he perceives the mouse to be an elephant. But that mouse can't trample him to death because it is not really an elephant.
I agree that no one can prove they are not a brain in a jar.
Quote:
Defining our debate, it means what I've been writing to you, not what I've been writing to others. Writing to others I might have had different intentions. It does not really matter though, I don't care what you think my intentions are if it does not stop you from participating in the debate.
I quoted from both this thread and the other one. I showed that your were stating the same things in the other thread and nailed down the meanings of your statements.
You have said religion is irrational and the Bible is illogical. I keep asking you for reasons why and you have not answered.
Quote:
Quote:
No [...] There can not be two beings with the description of the God of the Bible for reason that I have already stated at least three times.
Well, in that case, I still haven't understood those reasons, because you say no to me each time I ask if I got it correct.
I can show you what I recall, then you can correct me if you wish -
Something about God deciding to not have the power to create God, you explained this was needed to be good, and then as I asked why it was evil, you just told me that supreme meant the highest, and that could only be one, and now you say no to that as well?
No, you are not stating what I said. in summary.
1) There can't be two Supreme beings because of the meaning of supreme. Two beings can't each possess All-Powerful.
2) God said there is not and never has been another God. I quoted the verse from Isaiah.
You have been tring to disprove the concept of God as the Bbile teaches him to be. God is the First Cause. There simply can't be two first causes.
Quote:
Yes I would, and I hopefully will never let it come to a place where my son would turn out into that.
I would not allow a son to live in my house knowing he had beaten my wife and raped my daughter and would do so in the future given the chance.
You say you would not kick him out of your house but would prevent him from doing so again. How would you do that? Would you lock him in a steel cage in your basement? Oh, and why do you claim it is the fault of a parent if a son doe snot listen to the parent and if he did such actions in the first place? Are you claiming that all parents whose children become criminals are bad parents?
Quote:
I don't recall an answer that convinced me to see the bible as being likely to be true. I'm sorry if I missed, in that case please rewrite it, if I however did not miss it, then I think you're lacking showing why it's sufficient likely to be believed.
I answered as to why it is true. There is no way I can MAKE you believe it. If you find fault with my what I have, quote what you find fault with and state why it is wrong.
And if I may point out again, although before I even made my statement you stated religion is irratinoal and that the Bible is illogical. You have yet to back up your statements.
Quote:
Quote:
Nonconsensual sex.
Thank you, but the definition is not clear enough for me yet, sorry if you find me stupid for that reason.
No, I don't find you stupid, but I do believe you are just trying to play word games. I'm not going to engage in playing word games and debating the meaning of the word "is."
Nonconsensual sex = one of the persons in the sex act did not consent to sex. Let's assume we are talking about sex between two adult human beings.
The average person on the street would have no problem understanding "nonconsensual sex."
If you disagree that nonconsensual sex is rape, why don't you tell me what you think rape is.
Quote:
I need from you how it is from both perspectives, both from the raper and the rapist, and I want from you also why each perspective isolated is wrong. Can you do that, you might convince me, but I doubt no misunderstanding will once again occur.
Rape is an evil action. If you don't already know that I'm not going to be able to convince you of it.
Rape harms the person who is raped and the person who is doing the raping. The rapist may start off raping only one person. But then it is easier for him to rape another. And another. And he may murder to cover it up. He may kidnap a girl and keep here caged until he tires of raping her and then kill her. Each evil action a person takes expands their capacity for evil.
Rape also is an attack on God because mankind was made in the image of God.
If you disagree that rape is an evil action/bad thing to do then explain why is is not a bad thing to do.
Quote:
Quote:
You did not explain why you claim God is not good for not making someone wants to rape you for all eternity think that he is actually raping you for all of eternity.
[/quote
Well, I did, but then realised you probably understood rape different as my saying of perspective did not seem to influence you. That's why I asked you to define rape, and why I still wants you to define it even more accurate than you've done so far, see above.
I have not seen it. You just been saying he is not good because he did not make it possible to rape someone for all eternity, either raping one of many "alternate bodies" they have or making them think they are raping the person for all of eternity.
I really would like you to explain why God is not good because he doesn't make it possible for someone to rape another person for all eternity; or think that he is raping another person for all eternity.
Quote:
Quote:
You asked me to define goodness and I did, in commonly understood terms.
I'm sorry, but without you defining these terms, without using other terms that needs to be defined, I cannot show you why the example you gave yourself does not make God good.
When you've come with a sufficient definition, I'll challenge it to the point where we come to an agreement, and then we can continue with me explaining why your examples shows God as not being good. If we do not come to an agreement, then we'll just have to agree upon disagreing of course, and talking about goodness makes no sense.
Dude, if you are not going to answer the question, just say "NO COMMENT.". I wrote commonly used terms in the English language. I'm not going to give definitions for 6 more words and then have you ask me for definitions for the words in those definitions.
Why is God not good because he doesn't make it possible for you to rape others (or think you are raping others) for all of eternity? That is really a straightforward question that should not be difficult to comprehend.
Quote:
Quote:
Freedom is the ability to attempt to take the actions you want to take that are possible for you given your abilities and resources.
What would you then call the final result, i.e. the consequence of said action?
Consequences. What occurred as a result of the actions taken.
Quote:
Because as I understand you, you say free will -> choose to do
Freedom -> that what you choose actually is something you can try
Free Will is the ability to chose to act.based on what is possible for you given your abilities and resources.
Freedom is the ability to carry out an action you have chosen (subject to what is possible for you given your abilities and resources.)
You have the free will to chose to rape someone. You have the freedom to try to rape someone. The fact that there may be consequences for you if you try to rape someone [like the person may pull a gun out and blow your head off] doesn't mean that you did not have freedom.
Quote:
In that sense freedom can't change, because you can always try, only your abilities and your resources can change, so how do you define the degree of you getting what you want? Just as an example, free speech, it's something you can do, I always see it as a freedom that it has no consequence, but what do you call that?
Freedom has nothing to do with getting what you want.
Freedom of speech does have consequences. If someone does not like what you said they may punch your lights out. Another consequences is someone might simply think you are in idiot. Someone else might think you are right and pat you on the back.
Quote:
Quote:
The fact that an environment exists does not mean that you don't have free will.
I never claimed that, I'm talking about the degree of free will, i.e. not 100% free will. It's not either you have or you don't, just look at addicts, and tell me they've completely free will.
Isn't that like sayhing a woman can be a little bit pregnant?  You either have free will or you don't.
@Corribus
Quote:
Quote:
Oh, I'm curious. Are you saying color is not considered to be a property of matter.
In common parlance, of course, it is a physical property of matter.
Exactly. So it is quite proper to say a substance is blue or green or whatever. The substance cannot be blue while simultaneously being green.
Yes, I realize is the visible spectrum that is reflected that we
Quote:
I certainly understand what point you were making, and the point may even have some merit, but there's a certain value in being rigorous in your arguments, and your argument was anything but rigorously correct.
The purpose of the statement was to illustrate the point that not all things are possilbe, not to describe the behavior of subatomic particlas. I don't think it is necessary to examine the bahavior of subatomic particle to anser the question "Can a substance by simultaneously blue and green?"
To answer your other question, yes, I realize electrons can be excited into higher energy states temporarily and molecules of an object can be at different energy levels.
Quote:
Is this what the OSM has really become?
You've taken pot shots at me on a number of occasions. For that reason I took your statments about me to be just that. I generally mirror that debate style of my opponent. Except that I have to be careful on how far I go.
____________
Revelation
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted December 04, 2009 06:28 AM |
|
|
I've read your last reply Elodin, and it's my impression that eventhough I could reply in a way that seems satisfying to me (illustrating my points), I also realise that it'd only be repetitions of what have already been said, in which sense I see no purpose.
So you know what, I think I'll edit on this post later, sum my points up, in small quick sentences, defining each part the way I see them (in my way, because I haven't been able to get your definition specific enough for me to be able to use them in illustrating my points).
No questionmarks this time.
Then you're most welcome to write if you agree, or disagree. If you attack the arguments, we can maybe once again get a good debate flowing. Right now however, all I see is that you ask me to do something I did in the post you're replying to.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 07, 2009 11:41 AM |
|
|
Xerox, 14, "Religion is mass manipulation
I think Religion is mass manipulation and brainwashing.
People don't get to create their own opinion. They don't get to think. They don't get free will. '
Why should religious people be "special"?
But the most horrible thing I can think that a religious person can do is to "teach" his or her child to believe in X religion. That is also brainwashing.
What a nice God
That let's millions of people starve and die. And apparently Heaven is not for everyone either. When the "apocalypse" come only those specially elected will be saved from that cataclysm.
People shouldn't be afraid to do a mistake or "breaking the Sun God 2.0s word".
Moral
We do not need religion to know what is right and wrong.
Unless you are a stupid you would know that it's wrong to steal a bike or wrong to murder. These "laws" don't come from religion, they come from our own common sense and perhaps ancient Greek philosophies.
Death
Most likely you will cease to exist when you die.
I don't get why it's hard for some people to understand that you cease to exist. Why would we live on? There is a reason we die. It doesn't make any sense that we would suddenly be ressurected and live in some other form again.
And if you do believe in this stuff then does Heaven etc only apply to humans? Are humans special to religious people? Are other animals then humans not considered worthy to live in Heaven or live on after death?
Psychology
If you had psychic problems would you:
A) Go to a Priest or something similar that follows "Gods word".
B) A skilled psychologist that has education on the subject.
To me, the answer is obvious. I would take the educated psychologist.
Critism
Some people think that you shouldn't be able to aim critism at religion. Why's that?
Isn't religion really just a political opinion? And in most democratic countries you can critize political opinions.
In Sweden a newspaper can publish an article called "snow you Mr. President" without consequenes from the state.
In the UN, critizing religion is "forbidden". In my opinion, it's just like critizing any other opinion and freedom of speech.
Free will
Teaching your child biblical tales as the ultimate truth, circucing your son without his opinion and letting certain religious people to skip for instance sexual education are all things that agains't the individual rights of a person. Did the child get the choice to believe in God or was he/she influenced by his parents? Did the son choose to get circumciced when he was a baby?
Or should the child be able to get his own opinion on religion when he/she grows older? When she/he chooses confirmate.
Membership in the Church
I am a member in the Swedish church. A lot of the population is. Because many of us were forced to be that. It used to be like this that when a parent was a member of the Church, the child would automatically be that too. This wasn't the case for me. I got baptized agains't my will. And my parents aren't even religious. Let children choose if they want to be a member of the church or not when they get the choice to confirm themselves.
I will defintly leave the church. I have nothing to do there (only tradition). If I marry then it would be in an atheist church.
Love
Love is something that has been heavily influenced by religion. The marriage between a man and a woman is "holy".
But what is a marriage between two men or two women then? Damned? Unholy? Marriage has been made up by religion and people should be able to love each other (even if it's an one night stand) without the influence of society.
Woman
Woman are far from equal in many religions. Look at the American society today. Many woman live as "slaves" in the house, as housewives. They don't get to work and don't get to be independant. They get to be the mans tool.
The Bible says that sin comes from women or something like that. The Koran says that the God despises women. In the Jewish morning prayer it basically says "Thank for letting me not become a woman".
In a modern society men and women should be equal. Religion has shaped a society where the Man dominates the Woman. W M.
Abortion
I don't see whats wrong here either.
It's the womans choice. Even though the woman and her boyfriend should discuss it it's still the woman carrying the baby and her choice. Every year more then 70,000 woman die because of illegal and insecure abortions.
The Ultimate Conclusion
I think that that we must take our own resposibility for how we live together. We should use our common sense and not trust that anybody else does all the moral and responsible job for us, such as God.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
