Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

Plato

Members
  • Content Count

    454
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Stamford, CT
  1. Well that's a fair amount of hyperbole but point taken. That's my complaint too. You know it's getting bad when people, out of nowhere, are sniping at praying over food in the political memes and lols thread... EDIT: and not with a meme either! *gasp* This thread should read "Why do certain Christians feel persecuted." Not "Religious et all" because Muslims actually do have it bad.
  2. https://www.aclu.org/maps/map-nationwide-anti-mosque-activity
  3. If God is a perfect being, and He made the universe, why would He have any reason to change it? ;) So true. He wouldn't need to flood the world, burn cities, fight his number 2 or send his son on a suicide mission. /head explode
  4. If God is a perfect being, and He made the universe, why would He have any reason to change it? ;)
  5. @MrAres So let me get this straight: Discussions of dieties aside, you are saying that the environmental factors, past experiences, habits, genetics, et all. are so controlling that they control "how much you drink, how you pick up the glass, exactly when your hand moves, every thought, every movement of every sub-atomic particle, every detail about everything in the universe being known, exactly and precisely." So complete, that the idea that someone chose to do something is in fact just another process already pre-determined? I understand how you got to that position. Have you considered that the reason no one can argue with you is because you have created an argument based on the belief there is no free will and the only supporting evidence you have is a logical argument invented to have no other solution. EDIT: What sort of twilight zone universe would allow me an WWWWWombat to be on the same side of a debate....
  6. Well, that pretty much sums up how I feel on the issue. Mine too.
  7. Data heavy websites like youtube/Netflix/online video games will be the first to cry foul if service providers start playing games. I think it'll be interesting to see when Google and Apple start providing internet to customers for nothing, and the other internet service providers start panicking. Happy will I be when I can just logon to a Wifi hub named "Google" or "Apple."
  8. Course If you believe that the future exists as a tangible/observable place. Who says it has to be set in stone? The past is set in stone, but the future (if such a concept as a tangible future exists) could be like mud. A Viscous Liquid. Time itself is a construct of man. The current chemical reaction is the only thing that exists, and through that complex process inside our brains, we can remember the past, and imagine a future. But that doesnt make it any more real than de ja vu
  9. That get's covered simply: God is not effecting your ability to make a choice. Knowledge and actions are separate.
  10. Fiiinnneee Saying we have no choice but to reason is as meaningless in this argument as saying we have no choice but to breathe, to drink water, etc. We will be reasoning out things as a species the same way we have no choice but to perpetuate our own heart beat. And that is just to live. All of this is based on the assumption that living and continuing living is a goal. One could still choose the nothing: stop drinking water, stop breathing, stop your own heart beat. What good is having no choice in what one desires (to live) if one can reason himself into killing himself. Using your example of probability, an outcome of 0 or 1 fails to account for quasiprobability distribution in which the outcome does not represent mutually exclusive states, or falls on a negative state.
  11. Oh ok, goodie. I don't think agree with capital punishment either, except: 1. when guilty party has committed acts of terror resulting in the death of many individuals. 2. When guilty party has committed treason resulting in the enemy gaining strategic advantage in wartime. I think this BECAUSE: both of these are acts of murder against the society at large and the government at large. They aren't some passion killing, or serial killer on the loose, but planned acts against the entire population.
  12. I was under the impression that bss our debate some pages back, the final conclusion drawn about free will: was that it is a matter of belief just like belief in God/belief in destiny.. You believe there isn't, I believe there is. You have reasons to believe there isn't, you gave them already. I have my reasons for believing there is, I gave mine already. Well, firstly, my post wasn't addressed to you. And secondly, so what? I'm not talking about believing it exists, I'm talking about my having proved that it is incompatible with omniscience. Yes, proved. With logic. And no-one has shown a flaw in my logic. The debate in this thread didn't just end some pages back, we didn't reach a final conclusion. That's why the thread is still going, on topic. Now, if you want to believe two logically incompatible things, then go ahead. But don't be surprised if people call you out on believing something impossible. The thread is still going because some people can argue about the color of apples all day and night (not you)... And you only proved that you believe there is no flaw in your own logic.
  13. You ARE familiar with European history correct? Why exactly ISN'T it logical for the state to help the poor? Why is Christ's teaching's a personal theology? Why not a social theology? Or a state theology?
  14. That's how you define it. I don't. Free will is the ability to reason, to desire things, and to act according to your desires - all depending to the exact circumstances you happen to be in. It's a matter of psychology, philosophy, theology, and so on. So this is how our identical definitions differ. If we define free will as the ability to make a choice - which we both do, except when we don't - then things which would preclude us from making a choice take away our free will. What if we have no choice but to reason, for our thoughts to follow a certain path? ("I will never tire of underlining a concise little fact which these superstitious people are loath to admit - namely, that a thought comes when "it" wants, not when "I" want.") What if have no choice in what we desire? ("The hear wants what it wants.") What if our ability to act upon our desires is fixed, and we have no choice if or how or when we do it? Then we would have no free will. Psychology, philosophy, theology, physics, maths - all taken into account. Aside from "God is magic, the rules don't apply to him" we've not had an actual attempt to show a flaw in my reasoning - and even then, it's about the rules, the logic, applying to us, so that argument doesn't really work. Probability, Nightstrike. Probability of either 0 or 1 with nothing in between - will or will not, no maybe. I was under the impression that bss our debate some pages back, the final conclusion drawn about free will: was that it is a matter of belief just like belief in God/belief in destiny.. You believe there isn't, I believe there is. You have reasons to believe there isn't, you gave them already. I have my reasons for believing there is, I gave mine already. The reason for this conclusion, is because the evidence we have both already given is there for both ways. And believing in one or the other doesn't actually effect anything anyway.
  15. How can we have a serious legal discussion if you actually think the current legal system is "an eye for an eye" ?
×
×
  • Create New...