Primarily for Rust

One of the ongoing debates here on MGCBTSOOYG, although i havent had the time to listen to Part 2 yet...

Part 1 http://216.247.64.85/ram/TTT/TTT050404.ram

Part 2 http://216.247.64.85/ram/TTT/TTT050405.ram

What do you use to play those files?

Some shitty player? If they're just audio convert them to mp3/ogg.

Yea, but the one i have is supposed to be streaming audio (i think) but nothing i have will play it. Real Player is supposed to play it but it doesnt.

I listened to both parts. Here are the arguments laid out by the minister, and my replies. These are paraphrases of what he said, as I only have what I remember of the sermon (as it is an audio file) and cannot be bothered to go step by step again. If you see an error in my rendition, or if you think I forgot to include something, tell me.

Also, he first goes on to debate whether god is sovereign, that is, whether god is omnipotent. I'm taking this as correct for the sake of argument, so I'm not debating it below:

"God can create a stone so big that he cannot move, and then he can move it."

The argument consists of god being omnipotent, and therefore logical restrictions not applying to him. Hence, he can do the logically impossible, which in this case amounts to 'moving a rock that he cannot move'.

That is a plausible answer to the paradox, but not to the Christian faith as a whole. In fact, it is that very answer, that 'god can do the illogical', that refutes Christianity itself.

"It is precisely because he is just and good, and such evil exists."

This argument consists of 'god knowing what is best for us', and as such, the existence of what we perceive as 'evil' or 'suffering' is for our own good.

The problem with this argument is first of all, that it is circular logic. Second of all, even with that unreasonable tactic aside, the minister has yet to show a valid reason for the existence of that 'evil' or that 'suffering'. The reply, "he knows what is best for us", does not suffice as an answer, since if he is omnipotent, then he must have the power to 'do what is best for us', without it having to be done through that 'evil' and that 'suffering'.

Hence, there is absolutely no reason given as to why it exists. The question, and the paradox still stand; and I must say, stand stronger than ever.

This is the perfect example of where the obliteration of logic, as done above, refutes the possibility of Christianity being true.

"

God has foreordained our future, but did it in such away, that we still have free will.



An example of what he means would be, god predestining me to go to work, yet me being free to do what I please in-between; as in, I can drink coffee before going to work, I can read the newspaper, watch T.V., drive, walk, use a bicycle, et cetera, all before I go to work.

The problem here being, that that does not amount to free will, since he is actively curtialing my ability to not go to work. I cannot not go to work, meaning that my choices, of whether or not work, are curtailed by him, and therefore free will is curtailedby him as well.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-06-2005).]

quote:Yea, but the one i have is supposed to be streaming audio (i think) but nothing i have will play it. Real Player is supposed to play it but it doesnt.

Save file/target as, download it, and then double click. Real Palyer should open it and being to stream it, if it does not, then maybe you have an older version. It worked for me.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



"God can create a stone so big that he cannot move, and then he can move it."

The argument consists of god being omnipotent, and therefore logical restrictions not applying to him. Hence, he can do the logically impossible, which in this case amounts to 'moving a rock that he cannot move'.

That is a plausible answer to the paradox, but not to the Christian faith as a whole. In fact, it is that very answer, that 'god can do the illogical', that refutes Christianity itself.

But how does logical not applying to God refute Christianity?

"It is precisely because he is just and good, and such evil exists."

This argument consists of 'god knowing what is best for us', and as such, the existence of what we perceive as 'evil' or 'suffering' is for our own good.

The problem with this argument is first of all, that it is circular logic. Second of all, even with that unreasonable tactic aside, the minister has yet to show a valid reason for the existence of that 'evil' or that 'suffering'. The reply, "he knows what is best for us", does not suffice as an answer, since if he is omnipotent, then he must have the power to 'do what is best for us', without it having to be done through that 'evil' and that 'suffering'.

Hence, there is absolutely no reason given as to why it exists. The question, and the paradox still stand; and I must say, stand stronger than ever.

This is the perfect example of where the obliteration of logic, as done above, refutes the possibility of Christianity being true.

Evil exists because someone disobeyed God out of his own free will. But pain is often the most efficient method to get a wayward Christians life back on track. Its like spanking your child in the ass. Its painful, but it gets the job done.

"

God has foreordained our future, but did it in such away, that we still have free will.



An example of what he means would be, god predestining to go to work, yet me being free to do what I please in-between; as in, I can drink coffee before going to work, I can read the newspaper, watch T.V., drive, walk, use a bicycle, et cetera, all before I go to work.

The problem here being, that that does not amount to free will, since I am not able to choose any and all possibilities. I cannot not go to work, meaning that my choices, of whether or not work, are curtailed, and therefore free will is curtailed.

Free will exists as a function on the causal plane. Each universe has a unique causal plane. So even if you knew the future, similar causal planes might have been experienced and not necessarilly that of yur own universe. That way free will and preordination are both conserved.

Its easier to think that if you cannot experience something with any sense and be certain that that experience is true, then it does not exist. Its also the same as saying God made a universe for ever individual, like a virtual reality game. I have no proof the you or anyone else exists as a living being. All i know for fact is that I exist.

All of this is to say that because we dont know what God knows, we cant know that our future is predetermined and what that future is. Therefore we have free will.

We can experience life, but since we have no basis to verify anything from the future we cannot know that whatever that future hold will be true for all cases. So then you may make another choice at any given point and change the x,y slope of your causal tangent.

Thats a little hard to understand but the principle that a. You must be able to experience some thing, and b. you must be able to verify that thing, will apply to alot of causal events and philosophical things.

I happened to develop that axiom while trying to prove mind over matter. So far it works for any case that i can perceive. But the real treat is that correlaries (sp?) unify teleportation and time travel into the same function. Just that time travel gives yu a different 4th dimension coordinate.

Those are merely theories. Just like an giant green dildo running the universe is a theory. They are irrelevant when discussing the Christian interpretation of things, since Christian hold that free will exists without the use of such multi-dimensional theories, or big green dildo theories.

The point therefore, still stands.

If you want to debate them still, then:

quote:

Free will exists as a function on the causal plane. Each universe has a unique causal plane. So even if you knew the future, similar causal planes might have been experienced and not necessarilly that of yur own universe. That way free will and preordination are both conserved.

That makes absolutely no sense.

You either are an omniscient being, and therefore know everything, or are not, and therefore do not. Hence, "similar casual planes" cannot be experienced, in any way that may alter your knowledge of what is going to happen in each of those planes, and therefore the argument still holds.

quote:Its easier to think that if you cannot experience something with any sense and be certain that that experience is true, then it does not exist. Its also the same as saying God made a universe for ever individual, like a virtual reality game. I have no proof the you or anyone else exists as a living being. All i know for fact is that I exist.

All of this is to say that because we dont know what God knows, we cant know that our future is predetermined and what that future is. Therefore we have free will.

Ignorance therefore free will? That isn't an argument.

quote:We can experience life, but since we have no basis to verify anything from the future we cannot know that whatever that future hold will be true for all cases. So then you may make another choice at any given point and change the x,y slope of your causal tangent.

This has nothing to do with an omniscient being knowing whatever is going to occur; the "uniqueness of the casual plane" if you will. That's what is in argument here. That an omniscient being already knows what is going to happen, that he already knows the degree of variation in the plane, to use your jargon; as such, that variation must occur, since if it does not, he wouldn't have been omniscient in the first place.

---

Honestly, I have no idea why you even bothered to post that, when it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. If you want to debate theories, fine, in that case, Mad Scientists is your place.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-06-2005).]

That makes absolutely no sense.

You either are an omniscient being, and therefore know everything, or are not, and therefore do not. Hence, "similar casual planes" cannot be experienced, in any way that may alter your knowledge of what is going to happen in each of those planes, and therefore the argument still holds.

I meant to say that one cannot know for fact that any future he perceives is true for all cases. God doesnt have anything to do with that statement.

Ignorance therefore free will? That isn't an argument.

Lets say that you educate a child f all 10 numbers. Then give him a sheet of paper with 2+2 and tell him to write the number that answers the question. Arithmetic has no meaning to him, he does not know how to answer that because he doesnt simply doesnt know how one goes about solving such. He is the "free" to write in any number he wishes between negative infinity and positive infinity.

Its not ignorance, its the inability to know factual data. You do not know what happens next, therefore you can in effect change your course of life without clashing any future you can perceieve.

Say that you go to work tomorrow. On some causal plane that is true. On some it is false. You have no way to determine where your causal plane lies when dealing with going t work tomorrow you have to decide where to put it. But in saying that, one must admit that all of those causal plane exist, therefore they can be experienced and are real. Therefore is God is onipotennt, He can know all information about all causal planes but your ignorance (if you will) allows you to have free will.

This has nothing to do with an omniscient being knowing whatever is going to occur; the "uniqueness of the casual plane" if you will. That's what is in argument here. That an omniscient being already knows what is going to happen, that he already knows the degree of variation in the plane, to use your jargon; as such, that variation must occur, since if it does not, he wouldn't have been omniscient in the first place.

---

Honestly, I have no idea why you even bothered to post that, when it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. If you want to debate theories, fine, in that case, Mad Scientists is your place.

He does, but because you do not you can do whatever you wish on your universes causal plane. But this argument is simply reverse engineering the idea of "I might go to work, but God knows if i am".

And yes, this axiom makes it possible for God to know all the future and yet allow us to have free will. Think of it in graphical terms in your head. Its not as crazy as it sounds.

But this is how it goes:

A) You must be able to experience some thing B) One must have some reference as to base his deltat for C

C) AND you must also know that said thing is true

Then it is fact. God has experienced the futures of all causal planes through realization of their being (watching a movie, listening to a radio, whatever) AND He knows it is true for all cases because of omnipotence.

It ispossible for man to perceive the future, but it is not possible for him to know that the causal information that he perceives is true for his causal plane of his universe, he cannot know that the perception is true. He cannot know for fact that it is true.

Same information is presented to both parties, yet one is able to know and the other isnt.

Think of it another way. Your walking around outside in a dark field. You can walk in any direction but you dont know where you are going and you ultimately determine where you end up. But a person with nightvision gogles knows where you are going....just without the omnipotence.

My axiom is perfectlyrelavent since it addresses your question on free will.

Also the axiom can be shown that God is a matter of faith, not fact.

Some can experience God through miraculous events. It happens from time to time. But since we cannot satisfy part C, that of knowing some reference, we cannot know for fact that He is real. Then since you cannot prove his existence, the only way to perceive him is to believe and forgo B and C. But by doing such you are lead to only a mere possibility.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:



I meant to say that one cannot know for fact that any future he perceives is true for all cases. God doesnt have anything to do with that statement.



Then this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and therefore we are left with the question... "Why did you even bother posting it here?"

The question at hand has everything to do with god. Moreover, the Christian explanation has nothing to do with multi-dimensions, hence this is once more irrelevant.

quote:Lets say that you educate a child f all 10 numbers. Then give him a sheet of paper with 2+2 and tell him to write the number that answers the question. Arithmetic has no meaning to him, he does not know how to answer that because he doesnt simply doesnt know how one goes about solving such. He is the "free" to write in any number he wishes between negative infinity and positive infinity.

Its not ignorance, its the inability to know factual data. You do not know what happens next, therefore you can in effect change your course of life without clashing any future you can perceive.

Say that you go to work tomorrow. On some causal plane that is true. On some it is false. You have no way to determine where your causal plane lies when dealing with going t work tomorrow you have to decide where to put it. But in saying that, one must admit that all of those causal plane exist, therefore they can be experienced and are real. Therefore is God is onipotennt, He can know all information about all causal planes but your ignorance (if you will) allows you to have free will.

You're simply convoluting the issue. I can explain that "theory" of yours, without such jargon, and it would be as effective.

That being said, the fact that I perceive it to be free will, does not mean that it is free will.

An example I've used numerous times here is, Oedipus Rex. In Oedipus Rex, Oedipus believes he has free will. He believes it so much that he leave his town in order to prove the prophecy wrong. He believing he has free will, does not refute the fact that he did not, since in the story, he is predestined to kill his father and marry his mother, and in fact does so. That explains why Oedipus is an example of Greek predeterminism.

To use your convoluted jargon, the fact that I do not know which casual plane my future consists of, does not refute it being predestined if somebody already knows what will happen; it only means that I perceive it to be free will, since to me the casual planes would be unknown.

We're not debating what we perceive, but what actually is, and what actually would be if there existed an omniscient being.

The above applies to the rest of your post so I'm not going to bother repeating myself.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-06-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

What do you use to play those files?

A .ram file is a Real Player format file.

Argon:

I should point out to you that everything you ever say to Rust will be irrelevant, unprovable, and without intellectual merit.

Just didn't want you to have high hopes or anything.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Argon:

I should point out to you that everything you ever say to Rust will be irrelevant, unprovable, and without intellectual merit.

Just didn't want you to have high hopes or anything.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)



I'll ask you to keep these childish fetishes of yours at bay. If you want to do something of importance, if you want to be bothered to bring something of intelligence to the debate on your part, then you can start by telling me how what he said, that is, a scenario of multiple dimensions, is at all relevant to the Christian interpretation, where no such thing is used?

At least if you do so, your stay here wouldn't be such a waste.

if he is omnipotent, then he must have the power to 'do what is best for us', without it having to be done through that 'evil' and that 'suffering'.

Yes. But jehova is sadistic - only

suffering gets his dick hard..

And as far as free will (here we go again)

it is really not critical to the

christian argument.

God is all-powerful and all-knowing.

He set all the circumstances and

knew all the possible outcomes.

Everything that happens then is

part of god's plan.

You may have free will, but you use

your [mind] to make choices suited

to your [circumstances]. Both of

these things were created by your

environment, and ultimately god...

Unless you have a [soul] that factors

into the decision making process,

and guess who made that?

Free will or not, everything including

people are destined to follow god's

set path. [He knew how it would turn

out, set all the starting factors,

so he wanted it to happen this way.]

Then our human souls are judged to

go to the good place or bad place,

determined ultimately by god's whim.

Luckily, god sent his son to be

sacrificed to save us from (his)

frightening scenario.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Argon:

I should point out to you that everything you ever say to Rust will be irrelevant, unprovable, and without intellectual merit.

Just didn't want you to have high hopes or anything.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

But with to what Rust just said to Argon,

Rust is right.

I'll try to work on this some tonight after work.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Argon:

I should point out to you that everything you ever say to Rust will be irrelevant, unprovable, and without intellectual merit.

Just didn't want you to have high hopes or anything.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

DS, I usually agree with that sentiment...but Rust is kicking this fella's ass in the logical argument department.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

DS, I usually agree with that sentiment...but Rust is kicking this fella's ass in the logical argument department.

Let me explain why I think Rust is winning in the logic department using an analogy to AI (what humans would have in the case free will doesn't exist). When designing an AI, you are the god of the intelligence you are creating. You know the exact conditions needed for certain actions to happen; and you can even set certain actions to take place at a certain time...then the AI takes over from there. If God exists as an omniscient being, we are simply AI creations of it...it knows our personalities exactly, and due to its knowledge of the future impacts in our lives, the God would be able to know exactly what we will do, and we wouldn't be able to stray from that path that is pre-ordained...it wouldn't be our choices working out, it'd be our preset artificial reactions to situations God creates in our lives to lull specific reactions; thus negating freewill in the current context of argument...luckily though, the Bible never says God is an all-knowing all-seeing eye (atleast in reference to time...I do believe it says he is timeless and eternal, but it doesn't touch on infinite knowledge of time)...that's just some crazy bullshit idea that sprung up about 1100 years ago...and was REALLY popularized by Catholics and Baptists (not sure if they were known as Baptists yet...) in the States over the past 120 years.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

But with to what Rust just said to Argon,

Rust is right.



Thank you for being objective.

Well i posted my own comments relavant to your initial reply. This thread was created to get your response, and i responded, therefore my theory is relavent. And why is my theory not relavent at all to Christianity?

You have explained absolutely nothing, however i go through writing a long philosophical veiwpoint that explains why free will exists even with an omniscient God. Yet your personal bias prohibits you from understanding the simplicity of it all.

And who are you to say that Odipius (sp?) as a story was not biased by an atheist? It makes absolutely no sense to base an argument on someone writing a fictional story and saying thats the way the world works.

God knows the future and you dont, therefore he knows what you will do in 10 minutes and you dont. DO YOU GET THAT?

Even a child can understand that.

"God is all-powerful and all-knowing.

He set all the circumstances and

knew all the possible outcomes.

Everything that happens then is

part of god's plan."

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Well i posted my own comments relavant to your initial reply. This thread was created to get your response, and i responded, therefore my theory is relavent. And why is my theory not relavent at all to Christianity?

It is irrelevant because the debate hinges on what the Christian Interpretation of "free will" and the universe consists of.

This IS NOT a debate about whether or not free will can be reconciled in general, but reconciled specifically with the Christian interpretation, which again does not hold any multi-dimensional theories.

quote:

You have explained absolutely nothing, however i go through writing a long philosophical veiwpoint that explains why free will exists even with an omniscient God. Yet your personal bias prohibits you from understanding the simplicity of it all.

Where has my personal bias prohibited me from understanding it? I fully understand what you're saying. Either provide an example where I am not, or please refrain from making these allegations.

quote:

And who are you to say that Odipius (sp?) as a story was not biased by an atheist? It makes absolutely no sense to base an argument on someone writing a fictional story and saying thats the way the world works.

Bias has nothing to do with anything here.

The story of Oedipus Rex is simply an example of how one perceiving free will, does not mean one has free will. Either refute this, or admit that you cannot.

quote:

God knows the future and you dont, therefore he knows what you will do in 10 minutes and you dont. DO YOU GET THAT?

Even a child can understand that.

I DO understand that! Where the hell have I even hinted at the contrary?

That's exactly why my future is predetermined.

I not knowing what will happen, means I PERCEIVE free will, that it 'seems to me that I have free will', that in no way means that I do have free will. Hence, your multi-dimensional theories fails.

Moreover, as evident from the replies of others, it seems that it is you who are not understanding.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-07-2005).]

It is irrelevant because the debate hinges on what the Christian Interpretation of "free will" and the universe consists of.

This IS NOT a debate about whether or not free will can be reconciled in general, but reconciled specifically with the Christian interpretation, which again does not hold any multi-dimensional theories.

Did you mean to say that it is not relavant? (first words)

But i am a Christian and i interpret my theory so that thats how i reconcile free will and omniscience. Christians do not have a definition of why free will exists and how God can be omniscient at the same time, sufficing to say that he is God and thats just how it is. I just go about and philosophically devise an explanation of such.

And that is why i posted it.

In your terms, what is the Christian interpretation of this issue? The "He is God"

trump card? Thats a pretty poor way of going about your posting career.

If the Christian interpretation lacks multi-dimensional theory (which so is because mst Christians arent intelligent enough to understand such), then where does God reside?

If your answer is somewhere in this dimension (and therefore universe) you have to admit that he is a real being just as we are, and that his domain can be reached.

Where has my personal bias prohibited me from understanding it? I fully understand what you're saying. Either provide an example where I am not, or please refrain from making these allegations.

Excuse me for saying such. I said that only because your posts lack any hint of your understanding. Especially since you try to refute me and dont cite any examples with logical/philosophical arguments.

The story of Oedipus Rex is simply an example of how one perceiving free will, does not mean one has free will. Either refute this, or admit that you cannot.

But that does not mean that free will does not exist.

Ok, lets start this fresh and you give me your definitin of what you think free will is.

I DO understand that! Where the hell have I even hinted at the contrary?

That's exactly why my future is predetermined.

I not knowing what will happen, means I PERCEIVE free will, that it 'seems to me that I have free will', that in no way means that I do have free will. Hence, your multi-dimensional theories fails.

Moreover, as evident from the replies of others, it seems that it is you who are not understanding.

That aside, you percieving the fundamental state of free will makes it so by my axiom .

So you admit that you dont know what will happen in the future. Then you have a free will to do as you please. Go to work, slack off, rape someone, commit suicide, whatever. But God knows what you ultimately will do.

If you understand that, then why cant you say that you have free will? Or are you trying to make free will of a human perspective nullified by the lack of free will from Gods perspective. It sounds to me that that s the only logical reason that you do not believe you have a truely free will.

So you are seeing things from Gods perspective, yet you put free will in the context of a humans perspective...irrational at best..

[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 04-07-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:



Did you mean to say that it is not relavant? (first words)

I said irrelevant, which is the same as saying "not relevant".

quote:

But i am a Christian and i interpret my theory so that thats how i reconcile free will and omniscience. Christians do not have a definition of why free will exists and how God can be omniscient at the same time, sufficing to say that he is God and thats just how it is. I just go about and philosophically devise an explanation of such.

And that is why i posted it.

In your terms, what is the Christian interpretation of this issue? The "He is God"

trump card? Thats a pretty poor way of going about your posting career.

If the Christian interpretation lacks multi-dimensional theory (which so is because mst Christians arent intelligent enough to understand such), then where does God reside?

If your answer is somewhere in this dimension (and therefore universe) you have to admit that he is a real being just as we are, and that his domain can be reached.



Well then this is a matter of you debating this with Christians not myself. Suffice to say, the Christians I am indirectly debating with, the minister, and xtreeme, do not hold this multi-dimensional view, and hence it is still irrelevant.

If you believe your theory can be applied to Christianity, then debate this with them, not me, and do so in another thread please.

quote:

Excuse me for saying such. I said that only because your posts lack any hint of your understanding. Especially since you try to refute me and dont cite any examples with logical/philosophical arguments.

I provided a logical argument, which you have yet to counter.

quote:But that does not mean that free will does not exist.

Ok, lets start this fresh and you give me your definitin of what you think free will is.

The ability to choose any choice allowed by the laws of Physics.

Or to quote the dictionary: "The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."



quote:

That aside, you [b] percieving the fundamental state of free will makes it so by my axiom .



And "axiom" which you arbitrarily decided upon! How the hell is that an axiom?

That is as much of an axiom as me saying "I am correct you are wrong"... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:

So you admit that you dont know what will happen in the future. Then you have a free will to do as you please. Go to work, slack off, rape someone, commit suicide, whatever. But God knows what you ultimately will do.

No, this is once again, "ignorance therefore free will". Your arguing that "since we don't know what will happen in the future, the you have free will" which IS "ignorance therefore free will", which IS NOT a logical argument.

Again, the fact that "I don't know what will happen in the future" only proves a perception of free will, not free will itself. You have yet to prove a connection to perception and something actually happening, save for your little "axiom" which isn't an axiom at all.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-07-2005).]

Im lacking the energy to keep having to point your stupid ass in the right direction. Fuck!

If you wont take the entire theory as a whole and apply it to my arguments (whether you wish to destroy mine or construct is up to you) then i cannot debate any longer. You completely dodge my veiw and instead apply your own to mine. My posts are reconciled directly to my theory, and you cant make any logical sense out of it unless you drop your and understand what i am trying to say!!!

I said irrelevant, which is the same as saying "not relevant".

Actually that was a reading error on my part.

Well then this is a matter of you debating this with Christians not myself. Suffice to say, the Christians I am indirectly debating with, the minister, and xtreeme, do not hold this multi-dimensional view, and hence it is still irrelevant.

If you believe your theory can be applied to Christianity, then debate this with them, not me, and do so in another thread please.

Fair enough.

I provided a logical argument, which you have yet to counter.

I went back and reread your initioal response to the .ram files. And what yousay is the same thing that you have been saying all along. And you make a statement, not an argument.

The ability to choose any choice allowed by the laws of Physics.

Or to quote the dictionary: "The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."

So then both fit your definition of free will. "Divine will" has no constraint on you, therefore by your own definition you admit the existence of free will.

And "axiom" which you arbitrarily decided upon! How the hell is that an axiom?

That is as much of an axiom as me saying "I am correct you are wrong"...

"axiom

A statement which is accepted as a basis for further logical argument. Generally axioms are self-evident truths or principles which are basic enough that there are no principles more basic from which to prove them."

If you are such an idiot so that you cannot use a dictionary, i am no longer going to debate this with you. And axiom is simply some evident truth that cannot be proven.

It is evident because you must agree that my definition of derivation of "fact" is indeed true. But i cannot prove the rest of my argument because there is no way to prove such without being God!

No, this is once again, "ignorance therefore free will". Your arguing that "since we don't know what will happen in the future, the you have free will" which IS "ignorance therefore free will", which IS NOT a logical argument.

Again, the fact that "I don't know what will happen in the future" only proves a perception of free will, not free will itself. You have yet to prove a connection to perception and something actually happening, save for your little "axiom" which isn't an axiom at all.

You have yet to logically prove to me why you think that free will does not exist. Statements are not logical arguments...

As for your last sentence, i will not comment. You seem to either lack intelligence to comprehend what i am saying, either that you arent understanding how i am arriving at my conclusion, or that you dont understand it, or that you simply will not listen to my argument.

I resign to post further in this thread.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Im lacking the energy to keep having to point your stupid ass in the right direction. Fuck!

If you wont take the entire theory as a whole and apply it to my arguments (whether you wish to destroy mine or construct is up to you) then i cannot debate any longer. You completely dodge my veiw and instead apply your own to mine. My posts are reconciled directly to my theory, and you cant make any logical sense out of it unless you drop your and understand what i am trying to say!!!

You again make these allegations yet do not post ANY examples. Again, either back this up or admit that you cannot. Give examples.

Also, once again, judging by the posts of others it is you who do not understand and are not following the debate correctly.

quote:

Fair enough.

Great. Then this is reason enough for me to not continue debating with you in this thread.

I will provide my one last post, in the hopes of ending the debate completely. If you feel it is still not completed, then by all means make a new topic, in which this is debate. But I will be debating this in this with you thread any long (save for this last reply).

If you do make a topic, I invite you to post the link here so I can reply there.

quote:



I went back and reread your initioal response to the .ram files. And what yousay is the same thing that you have been saying all along. And you make a statement, not an argument.

I'm saying the same thing because you have yet to refute it!

Moreover, the argument I speak of is the perception does not prove free will, which you have yet to counter.

quote:

So then both fit your definition of free will. "Divine will" has no constraint on you, therefore by your own definition you admit the existence of free will.

How do you know it has no restrain on me? Because you PERCEIVE it to have no restrain? Again, PERCEPTION does not refute the existence of predestination. And no, you "axiom" doesn't refute it either, since it isn't an axiom.

quote:

"axiom

A statement which is accepted as a basis for further logical argument. Generally axioms are self-evident truths or principles which are basic enough that there are no principles more basic from which to prove them."

If you are such an idiot so that you cannot use a dictionary, i am no longer going to debate this with you. And axiom is simply some evident truth that cannot be proven.

Where the FUCK have I ever hinted at not knowing the definition of "axiom"?

Did the thought ever go through your brain that I might not believe what you claim is an axiom is "Self-evident"? Of course not, you're a moron.

quote:

It is evident because you must agree that my definition of derivation of "fact" is indeed true. But i cannot prove the rest of my argument because there is no way to prove such without being God!

I must certainly not agree with it.

It not being able to be proven does not mean it cannot have evidence for it, which you again have not provided.

quote:

You have yet to logically prove to me why you think that free will does not exist. Statements are not logical arguments...

I think it DOES exist.

I'm arguing that it wouldn't exist if an omniscient being knows what will happen. Had you listened to the files you would have already known why since it is what is being argued in the tapes, and wouldn't be asking such an ignorant question.



quote:

As for your last sentence, i will not comment. You seem to either lack intelligence to comprehend what i am saying, either that you arent understanding how i am arriving at my conclusion, or that you dont understand it, or that you simply will not listen to my argument.

I resign to post further in this thread.

As I showed above it is YOU who are obviously lacking intelligence since you so erroneously assume that I must not know what an "axiom" means if I don't believe it to be self-evident, which is utterly stupid.

Tantamount to me claiming that you're a fucking moron because you don't believe the "axiom", "Rust is correct, eveyrone else is a moron" to not be self-evident... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-07-2005).]

Sorry to break my promise, but perhaps we should agree that we are thinking on our own terms and our individual terms disagree witheach other. Also you dont take my connotation of words correctly http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

No. And once again, give examples or admit that you cannot.

You keep making these allegations ,and yet refuse to give examples which speaks volumes of the respective allegations.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



I'll ask you to keep these childish fetishes of yours at bay. If you want to do something of importance, if you want to be bothered to bring something of intelligence to the debate on your part, then you can start by telling me how what he said, that is, a scenario of multiple dimensions, is at all relevant to the Christian interpretation, where no such thing is used?

At least if you do so, your stay here wouldn't be such a waste.

I didn't say you weren't right, in this case.

Your defensive nature only shows that you actually care what I think about you.

I just thought I would save Argon endless pages of futile arguing, because you are far too self-important to acknowledge when someone else is right.

If they are wrong, then it will be evident.

You don't have to litter your posts with snotty little comments about how we can't read, we must be morons (or whores), and everything we say is not only irrelevant, but beneath you to respond to (even though you always do).

Argon hasn't experienced the annoyance of having a debate with you, and I felt he/she should be forewarned.

I don't find that to be a waste of ANYONE'S time.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

DS, I usually agree with that sentiment...but Rust is kicking this fella's ass in the logical argument department.

Of that I have no doubt...and I didn't say otherwise.

I was just trying to save the guy some time.

Both Xtreem and I both know firsthand that no matter how well a case is presented, it will be shirked off as sub-worthy.

He's just a hateful little man...and I don't want Argon to waste his time.

That's all I was trying to say.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Thank you for being objective.

Why wouldn't he be ?

Why do you only recognize Xtreem's unending objectivity when it benefits YOU ?

At any other time, you wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.

*pfft*

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

It is irrelevant because the debate hinges on what the Christian Interpretation of "free will" and the universe consists of.



See, Argon ? There you go being irrelevant again. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Don't worry about it, man...it's not even worth it.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Im lacking the energy to keep having to point your stupid ass in the right direction. Fuck!

I resign to post further in this thread.

Should have listened to me, man.

I told ya.

*sighs*

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You again make these allegations yet do not post ANY examples. Again, either back this up or admit that you cannot. Give examples.

And where have we all heard this before (many times) ?

Your pony show is getting old, Rust.

Honestly, why do you come to this forum ?

Do you get off on trying to make other people feel stupid ? Is that it ?

You certainly don't want to debate about anything religious.

I can't see what motivates you.

I'm just going to address a few things in this post to try to steer the topic allitle.

In the next post i'll try to cover some of the arguements... atleast i'll try. Just so you all know, my intent is not to get approval from anyone, just trying to defend the doctrine as i understand it.

First, let me appologize for the difficulty that some had in listening to this file. They were from a site that Hex had some difficulties listening to another file (because of his new browser not having java)

Anyway, here is a link that will bring up the file (I know this seems redundant, but there is a reason i'm doing this):

http://www.truthsthattransform.org/

The reason i am basically being reduntant is that there are two more sections. What was already listened to was:

The Sovereignty of God Parts 1 & 2

the next sections are:

Does Man Have Free Will?

On both of these, there are things that i dont necessarily agree with Dr. D. James Kennedy. but i do take into account that he has a Doctor of Divinity degree, where as all i have is a drivers license. lol

I ask you to take into account that his sermon is directed at believers. As Rust pointed out the minister has yet to show a valid reason for the existence of that 'evil' or that 'suffering'. , but since it is directed to believers, there would be no reason for the minister to show a valid reason.... this is where Dr. Kennedy's sermon is different from my intentions of posting.. i'm just using something and trying to work from that point.

********************

ArgonPlasma2000, the reason Rust is right concerning your "causal plane" explaination is that; God, being omniscient, would know the complete outcome of all choices in all "planes". Rust has boiled it down before, to the simplist explaination for his side of the arguement:

(in brevity)

God knows/knew for infinity, that we would choose A instead of B, if we somehow changed our mind at the last moment, Omniscient God, would have known that. If He did not know it, then He could not be omniscient.

Your arguement of "planes" may or may not be correct, but it is irrelevant because as long as God knows something, it is His Truth, and therefore not human freewill.

You so, however, mention All of this is to say that because we dont know what God knows, we cant know that our future is predetermined and what that future is. Therefore we have free will. ... this is along the right track...(next post)

*************

Rust, this statement puzzles me: That's exactly why my future is predetermined..

I have assumed that you are athiest. Are there anyother religions besides (about half of) Christianity, that believe in predestination?? It doesnt matter, i guess, just wondering.

***************

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I didn't say you weren't right, in this case.

Your defensive nature only shows that you actually care what I think about you.

No. I posted this because what you said had aboslutley nothing to do with the debate. It was merely a weak ad-hominem on your part, particaularly hilarious coming from someone who claims to be a Christian.

quote:

I just thought I would save Argon endless pages of futile arguing, because you are far too self-important to acknowledge when someone else is right.

If they are wrong, then it will be evident.

You don't have to litter your posts with snotty little comments about how we can't read, we must be morons (or whores), and everything we say is not only irrelevant, but beneath you to respond to (even though you always do).

Brilliant! The same logic would apply to my "snotty comments" then. I don't want other people to waste their time reading his posts...



http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:

Argon hasn't experienced the annoyance of having a debate with you, and I felt he/she should be forewarned.

I don't find that to be a waste of ANYONE'S time.



He/she HAS debated with me, which shows your level of ignorance, and even more reaons for you to shut up.

quote:Why wouldn't he be ?

Why do you only recognize Xtreem's unending objectivity when it benefits YOU ?

At any other time, you wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.



Where did I say he wouldn't nomrally be? I'm merely thanking him for being objective.

But what a surprise, more of these allegations you cannot back up! Weeee!

quote:See, Argon ? There you go being irrelevant again.

Don't worry about it, man...it's not even worth it.

Pathetic. If Xtreeme was being objective then it mean it WAS irrelevant.

Which one is it? Either Xtreeme was being objective, and this was irrelevant ans therefore I was correct, or it was relevant and Xtreme was incorrect.

quote:And where have we all heard this before (many times) ?

Your pony show is getting old, Rust.

Honestly, why do you come to this forum ?

Do you get off on trying to make other people feel stupid ? Is that it ?

You certainly don't want to debate about anything religious.

I can't see what motivates you.

Right. Me wanting him to show evidence of allegations made against me is a "pony show"... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

More evidence of your stupidity.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



*************

Rust, this statement puzzles me: That's exactly why my future is predetermined..

I have assumed that you are athiest. Are there anyother religions besides (about half of) Christianity, that believe in predestination?? It doesnt matter, i guess, just wondering.

***************



I am an atheist, more specifically a materialist.

I was speaking in the hypothetical scenario of an omniscient being, existing. If he knows the future, that is exactly why my future would be predestined, in that scenario.

quote:No. I posted this because what you said had aboslutley nothing to do with the debate. It was merely a weak ad-hominem on your part, particaularly hilarious coming from someone who claims to be a Christian.

Sorry, if you didn't care, you wouldn't bother yourself with responding to me.

Of course what I said had absolutely nothing to do with the debate. So ? That can be said of everyone here. Not everything that is posted is related to debate, or even religion (as is the case with you almost all the time).

quote:Brilliant! The same logic would apply to my "snotty comments" then. I don't want other people to waste their time reading his posts...

I also want to point out that your snotty comments offer nothing in the form of "debate"...so it is YOU that is being a hypocrite, not I.

I am sure you really care if other people "waste their time" or not. You just want to argue.

Pure and simple.

quote:He/she HAS debated with me, which shows your level of ignorance, and even more reaons for you to shut up.

And when I said that, I hadn't read the rest of the thread.

Nice of you to jump to conclusions, showing YOUR level of ignorance.

I think the last time we got into it on here, the majority of the other posters made it quite clear who it was they were MORE sick of hearing from, and it certainly wasn't me.

quote:Where did I say he wouldn't nomrally be? I'm merely thanking him for being objective.

You didn't, and that wasn't the point (which you know, and have tried to skirt around).

My point is that you don't say that about him any other time, only when he is stroking your ego.

Nice.

quote:But what a surprise, more of these allegations you cannot back up! Weeee!

And what a surprise that I just did.

Again.

quote:Pathetic. If Xtreeme was being objective then it mean it WAS irrelevant.

Woohoo ! A new derogatory word for you to add to your repititous rhetoric ! Congrats, Rust. I am sure you are very proud of yourself.

I was telling Argon not to take you too personally, since you are a jerk.

It is relevant.

quote:Which one is it? Either Xtreeme was being objective, and this was irrelevant ans therefore I was correct, or it was relevant and Xtreme was incorrect.

Apparently, your powers of observation are lacking this evening, since I wasn't talking to Xtreem in that post, but rather to Argon.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Right. Me wanting him to show evidence of allegations made against me is a "pony show"...

More evidence of your stupidity.

Not talking about allegations...I am talking about you telling people they are stupid, and irrelevant.

I am asking you to try something different.

I am pointing out that your use of the words "irrelevant", "ad-hominem", and "stupid" is overkill, since you say them everytime you post.

Relevant, and intelligent.

More evidence of your annoying intolerance.

Oh, and "strawman"...

You like that one an awful lot, too.

First, let me say, i still havent listened to the second part of "Sovriegnity", nor the second part of "Free Will", so if Dr. K and I conflict, please point it out. I had intentions of listening to part 2 of "Sover." tonight but the last post took too long and the quarrelling in this thread is more than pointless. As to the second part of "FreeWill", as of the time i'm writing this, that part had not been open to listen to. Just so ya'll know, Theologens have been debating this topic for centuries, (and still are), so even if we solve this one here, unless someone publishes it, it will mostlikely be debated for centuries to come).

**********

Although the Bible does not come out and say that we have free-will, the Bible states two things on the matter. First and foremost, all things are God's Will. If this were the only thing mentioned, there would be no thought of free will.. but as Rust and others have pointed out, then the question would be "why is God so unjust" (which does come up anyway, but that's for later). The second thing God's Word states is that we are commanded to obey God, which alludes to choices--- which alludes to free-will~~~ or atleast some measure of it.

I think that, for the most part, free-will is a prespective thing. From God's perspective, all things are predetermined.

From our perspective, we have the ability of choices (limited, not only by the physical, but also by what God allows us to choose).

Scripture does not come out and say that we have freewill, but it does say that all things are God's Will. The concept of freewill was "put forward" by St. Augustine, and he had "training" in Greek philosophy, so it did influence his writing. (who knows, he probably read Oedipus).

Freewill was St. Augustine's answer to the problem, which Scripture alludes/implies i.e. that we are told that the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus as the Christ (this implies a choice on our part), we are told to pray to God (which alludes to the choice of "pray or not to pray"), Jesus told the woman, "sin no more" (this could be taken two ways: 1. as a "command" like in a program

2. as a warning, but still allowing the ability to "screw up" (no pun intended).

I also said, "limited, not only by the physical, but also by what God allows us to choose)". God being all powerful, would have the ability to allow us choices [b]AND[b/] also have the ability to know what the choices are/would be. But i think He limits that choice to two.. 1. to accept Him or to reject Him. 2. to sin or not to sin (which is really a variation of the first, but the first is for salvation and the second is day to day sins).

I personally lean so far toward predetermination, as to leave free-will almost negligible . Either we choose to believe and trust in Jesus work on the Cross, or we dont.



When i made this thread, i had been of the hope that the tapes would argue Rust, and i posted before i listened to them, just so i didnt procrastinate and forget (not that i ever do that...ahem).

Anyway, i guess it is now your turn Rust, then we can go from there.

**********

BTW, Viraljimmy, you are pretty insightful with many of your posts, but why do you have to post with that annoying "poetry form"??

More importantly, why does it bother me so much???

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Sorry, if you didn't care, you wouldn't bother yourself with responding to me.

Of course what I said had absolutely nothing to do with the debate. So ? That can be said of everyone here. Not everything that is posted is related to debate, or even religion (as is the case with you almost all the time).

What do you mean "So?"? If it is not pertaining to the debat, a specific debate requested by Xtreem mind you, then it is irrelevant and shouldn't be posted, it serves only to pollute the thread and therefore I spoke against it.

quote:I also want to point out that your snotty comments offer nothing in the form of "debate"...so it is YOU that is being a hypocrite, not I.

I am sure you really care if other people "waste their time" or not. You just want to argue.

Pure and simple.

"Snotty comments" ... were INCLUDED in the debate. Moreover, it was YOU who started those comments in this thread, not I. More hypocrisy.



quote:And when I said that, I hadn't read the rest of the thread.

Nice of you to jump to conclusions, showing YOUR level of ignorance.

I think the last time we got into it on here, the majority of the other posters made it quite clear who it was they were MORE sick of hearing from, and it certainly wasn't me.

How does that shoe my ignorance? I'm pointing out how you shouldn't speak without knowing what you're talking about. That is, you shouldn't speak about he/she not having debated with me before, when it is clear that you have no knowledge of that.

quote:You didn't, and that wasn't the point (which you know, and have tried to skirt around).

My point is that you don't say that about him any other time, only when he is stroking your ego.

Nice.

Right. Of course. You know this because of the large amount of evidence you have with you...

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:And what a surprise that I just did.

Again.

How the hell is that backing it up? You just answered your own question! That's not evidence.

quote:Not talking about allegations...I am talking about you telling people they are stupid, and irrelevant.

I am asking you to try something different.

I am pointing out that your use of the words "irrelevant", "ad-hominem", and "stupid" is overkill, since you say them everytime you post.

Relevant, and intelligent.

More evidence of your annoying intolerance.

No. You quoted me asking him to back up his allegations, hence when you say that is a "pony show" you must either be completely mistaken, or be speaking of me wanted him to back up those allegations.

Thus, you either were completely and utterly incorrect, or you were implying that me wanting him to back up his allegations was a "pony show". Which one is it?

Nice try, but you're not going to lose me.

quote:Posted by Rust:

What do you mean "So?"? If it is not pertaining to the debat, a specific debate requested by Xtreem mind you, then it is irrelevant and shouldn't be posted, it serves only to pollute the thread and therefore I spoke against it.

Oh, so now the value of someone's post is measured by whether or not it pollutes the thread ?!

*LAUGHING OUT LOUD* !!!

Then I suggest you stop peddling your wares at ONE house in town, buddy.

There are PLENTY of people here who do that, including yourself.

Almost everything you say here is pollution, by your definition.

Moot.

1. Thank you for not responding to the rest of the arguments.

2. This argument pertains to THIS thread. I never claimed that all your other posts are "wastes" only THAT ONE... HERE.

My posts here have not been wastes since they are direct replies to others.

quote:Posted by Rust:

"Snotty comments" ... were INCLUDED in the debate. Moreover, it was YOU who started those comments in this thread, not I. More hypocrisy.

Oh, really ?

quote:Posted by Rust:

To use your convoluted jargon...

That was YOU, being SNOTTY to Argon, long before I even posted.

So, it was YOU that started being nasty, not I.

quote:Posted by Rust:

How does that shoe my ignorance? I'm pointing out how you shouldn't speak without knowing what you're talking about. That is, you shouldn't speak about he/she not having debated with me before, when it is clear that you have no knowledge of that.

It shows your ignorance because you didn't bother to consider that I am responding to posts IN ORDER, and therefore did not anticipate the answer, which you insinuated. That's pretty darn ignorant, if you ask me.

While I cannot say that he/she has not EVER debated with you before, I have been here for 8 months or so, and I have NEVER seen you two debate. In that aspect, that can be construed as ignorance, which is not fault of my own. Stupidity would be, in contrast.

Observation was my "knowledge" with regards to the commment I made.

quote:Right. Of course. You know this because of the large amount of evidence you have with you...

What a scapegoat !

You know damn well you haven't. I've been here long enough to attest to such a thing.

I also know for a fact that you never compliment or thank ANYONE unless they have said something in your defense, or agree with you wholeheartedly.

You are what is known as a "hag hound". You only like people when they are completely benefitting you.

Sickening.

quote:How the hell is that backing it up? You just answered your own question! That's not evidence.

My explanation was sufficient. If you couldn't understand it, I apologize. I can't make it any simpler.

quote:No. You quoted me asking him to back up his allegations, hence when you say that is a "pony show" you must either be completely mistaken, or be speaking of me wanted him to back up those allegations.

Thus, you either were completely and utterly incorrect, or you were implying that me wanting him to back up his allegations was a "pony show". Which one is it?

Nice try, but you're not going to lose me.

No, my original statements, to which you seemingly took great offense, were that every comment Argon could make would be castrated by being rated as "irrelevant", "ad-hominem", and "stupid".

I was not wrong.

I am still not wrong.

That is your "pony show"...same pony's, every single time you post.

I know that hurts, but the truth always does. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

(and I know very well what I was referring to when using the phrase "pony show", since I am the one who said it. You can't presume to know what I meant, so your BS is just that.)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. Thank you for not responding to the rest of the arguments.

2. This argument pertains to THIS thread. I never claimed that all your other posts are "wastes" only THAT ONE... HERE.

My posts here have not been wastes since they are direct replies to others.



No, you made a judgement that my posts didn't pertain to the actual debate, and therefore polluted it.

My point is still relevant, and you haven't proved otherwise.

The "pollution" you infect this site with is in every thread...not just this one.

I believe I was very clear on that point.

And after careful inspection, I hope you realize your "err" in accusing me of EVADING the remainder of your arguments.

I already answered them.

So, anyway...as usual, this will get neither of us anywhere, and I am sure Xtreem doesn't appreciate my hijacking his thread...

So, I turn it back over to him, with apologies attached.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-07-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



I think that, for the most part, free-will is a prespective thing. From God's perspective, all things are predetermined.

From our perspective, we have the ability of choices (limited, not only by the physical, but also by what God allows us to choose).

The thing is, if those choices are limited by someone else, then free will must not exist.

quote:

Scripture does not come out and say that we have freewill, but it does say that all things are God's Will. The concept of freewill was "put forward" by St. Augustine, and he had "training" in Greek philosophy, so it did influence his writing. (who knows, he probably read Oedipus).

Freewill was St. Augustine's answer to the problem, which Scripture alludes/implies i.e. that we are told that the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus as the Christ (this implies a choice on our part), we are told to pray to God (which alludes to the choice of "pray or not to pray"), Jesus told the woman, "sin no more" (this could be taken two ways: 1. as a "command" like in a program

2. as a warning, but still allowing the ability to "screw up" (no pun intended).

The concept of free will being crucial to the viability of Christianity to exist, as you explain, meant that St. Augustine as well as other Christian theologians would have to explain why we must directly chose to do good, to follow the Christians teachings, even if God knows what will happen.

If this hadn't been done, arguably Christianity would have lost any support it had.

Yet this brings up even more arguments aside from the logical inconsistency.

How do you know Augustine was correct? You have absolutely no way of knowing that what he has said is correct. You may argue that it is because he was a saint, a man enlightend by god. If so, then god sees no problem with abortions, at least abortions done in the first months, since Augustine believed the fetus was dead, as it did not have a soul.



quote:

I also said, "limited, not only by the physical, but also by what God allows us to choose)". God being all powerful, would have the ability to allow us choices [b]AND[b/] also have the ability to know what the choices are/would be. But i think He limits that choice to two.. 1. to accept Him or to reject Him. 2. to sin or not to sin (which is really a variation of the first, but the first is for salvation and the second is day to day sins).

I personally lean so far toward predetermination, as to leave free-will almost negligible . Either we choose to believe and trust in Jesus work on the Cross, or we dont.



The problem being, this is not the definition commonly used by society, nor is it the definition, commonly used by Christians, nor is it the definition used by the minister!

The definition is that of the dictionary, if god can know what I'm going to do, then my free will is limited, period.

Actually, there is one way to escape this contradiction. That being, that god is omnipotent and could allows us to have free will while at the same time know what will happen in the future.

Yet this, as the paradox with the rock, shatters logic, and then proves to be Christianity's downfall as it cannot explain how an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god allows for evil and suffering to exist.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

So, anyway...as usual, this will get neither of us anywhere, and I am sure Xtreem doesn't appreciate my hijacking his thread...

So, I turn it back over to him, with apologies attached.



LOL no problem, i dont see it as hijacked, just alittle side tracked... LOL... is the bickering (TOTSE MEMBER vs. TOTSE MEMBER... not meaning Digital v. anyone OR Rust v. anyone Or even me v. anyone) predestine or free-will??

I know in the past i've "accused" Rust of suckering me into an arguement [or maybe it was me allowing myself to succumb (sp?) to arguements]. In either case, it would seem that it was definitely against my (free) will. LOL

Besides, i wasnt really looking forward, at this moment, to Rust ripping my post apart. LOL I think it is tmie for bed...

Catch ya'll later

God Bless you all.

quote:That was YOU, being SNOTTY to Argon, long before I even posted.

So, it was YOU that started being nasty, not I.

Jargon by defintion is convoluted.

Also, you forget that he attacked me first.

quote:It shows your ignorance because you didn't bother to consider that I am responding to posts IN ORDER, and therefore did not anticipate the answer, which you insinuated. That's pretty darn ignorant, if you ask me.

Again, you knowingly made a claim when you knew you had no knowledge of that. Hence THAT is what I'm pointing out. This has nothing to do with you psoting in order, since the fact is, you made a clame when you knowingly did not have all the facts, and therefore I am justified in pointing that out.

quote:You know damn well you haven't. I've been here long enough to attest to such a thing.

I also know for a fact that you never compliment or thank ANYONE unless they have said something in your defense, or agree with you wholeheartedly.

You are what is known as a "hag hound". You only like people when they are completely benefitting you.



More allegations you cannot back up. Also, thanks for not backing up the last one.

quote:My explanation was sufficient. If you couldn't understand it, I apologize. I can't make it any simpler.

An explaination is NOT evidence. Hence you failed to back up anything.

quote:No, my original statements, to which you seemingly took great offense, were that every comment Argon could make would be castrated by being rated as "irrelevant", "ad-hominem", and "stupid".

I was not wrong.

I am still not wrong.

That is your "pony show"...same pony's, every single time you post.

I know that hurts, but the truth always does.

(and I know very well what I was referring to when using the phrase "pony show", since I am the one who said it. You can't presume to know what I meant, so your BS is just that.)

Again, you're not going to lose.

Read what I said. I said what you had quoted was me asking him to back up his allegations, you then described that as a pony show. To which I asked, if me wanting him to back up his allegations was a pony show, and you answered "Not talking about allegations" when you WHERE.

quote:No, you made a judgement that my posts didn't pertain to the actual debate, and therefore polluted it.

My point is still relevant, and you haven't proved otherwise.



It is not relevant to the discussion xtreme brought, hence it IS irrelevant.

quote:And after careful inspection, I hope you realize your "err" in accusing me of EVADING the remainder of your arguments.

I already answered them.



How fuckign pathetic... you answered them... AFTER I HAD MADE THE POST.

Hence, my initial post was completely justified.

In case you didn't comprehend it the first time...

This argument is over.

You can keep wasting your time if you want to, but...

Just wanted to clear up one last thing:

quote:Posted by Rust:

Pathetic. If Xtreeme was being objective then it mean it WAS irrelevant.

The key word in that sentence, which I was clearly focusing on, was "PATHETIC". To which I replied:

quote:Woohoo ! A new derogatory word for you to add to your repititous rhetoric ! Congrats, Rust.

That is specifically stating that you can add the word "pathetic" to the host of words you use to ridicule people with.

I wasn't talking about objectivity or irrelevance in regards to your post.

So, you're still wrong.

quote:Posted by Rust:

Again, you're not going to lose.

I know.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Just wanted to clear up one last thing:

That is specifically stating that you can add the word "pathetic" to the host of words you use to ridicule people with.

I wasn't talking about objectivity or irrelevance in regards to your post.

So, you're still wrong.



What the hell does that have to do with anything? My question came BEFORE that... get it? As it had nothing to do with that comment...

The order of my posts did not make what I typed in them irrelevant.

It had everything to do with your idiotic argument, since you were WRONG !!

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The order of my posts did not make what I typed in them irrelevant.

It had everything to do with your idiotic argument, since you were WRONG !!

You still don't get it.

I said, "Pathetic. If Xtreeme was being objective then it mean it WAS irrelevant."

BEFORE you posted "Woohoo ! A new derogatory word for you to add to your repititous rhetoric ! Congrats, Rust"

Once more, they are not even related! So what do they have to do with each other, and how am I wrong?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Of that I have no doubt...and I didn't say otherwise.

I was just trying to save the guy some time.

Both Xtreem and I both know firsthand that no matter how well a case is presented, it will be shirked off as sub-worthy.

He's just a hateful little man...and I don't want Argon to waste his time.

That's all I was trying to say.

Ah, okay. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

"I have assumed that you are athiest. Are there anyother religions besides (about half of) Christianity, that believe in predestination?? It doesnt matter, i guess, just wondering."

Ooh, I love this kind of stuff. I myself am rather uncertain as to whether we are drones or whether or not we have free will...it doesn't even matter to me which it is really, I just like trying to entertain the arguments of both sides. From my perspective (and we all know mine is perfect http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)), the best argument I can see against free will is that of cause and effect. Our emotional structure and personality is shaped entirely by that around us, the electrons in our mind are slaves to the physical world and its laws, and the firing of neurons is slave to the input of our environment. (Quick intermission...I found a box of frozen pancakes in the freezer, said, "Ooh, pancakes. I think I'll have a couple of those." My mom bitched at me, then exclaimed, "I'm saving those for the weekend." I mean, what the hell? Who saves pancakes for a weekend meal...I thought pancakes were for anyone who wants a damned pancake, heh.)

Fuck it...I wanted pancakes...I'll continue later.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I am sure you really care if other people "waste their time" or not. You just want to argue.



What's wrong with that? One of the main reasons I, and others, come here is to argue. To have our ideas tested outside of the realms of our own minds.

If it weren't for this, then this forum would be just another 24/7 preachy circle-jerk like The Right to Bear Arms.