You seem smart enough to know that the god the Hebrews had in mind can't possibly exist, yet you are a Christian.

(Today at 3:06 am)Deesse23 Wrote: You seem smart enough to know that the god the Hebrews had in mind can't possibly exist, yet you are a Christian.

Not getting you. Yahweh can't possibly exist?

(Today at 3:06 am)Jal Wrote:

(Today at 3:02 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Do you have ANY training wrt to Hebrew language, culture or history to make ANY informed statement about what these people were thinking and what they probably meant when they wrote about "allmighty" god, living in skies, above a flat earth etc ?

An actualized/ realized infinity is a stupid self-contradictory concept.  That's pretty much all I need to know. 

For a non-Christian, stupid readings are acceptable, as he has no incentive to defend the Bible.

For me, they are not acceptable.

That was gibberish and a nin answer, and we both know it.

I take it as a "not at all"

What makes you think you can make informed statements about which you have NO education about? Does that question ring a bell wrt to the course of this thread? You remember how ravenshire asked you exactly this wrt science?

The problem with you is: you see no problem with being completely ignorant. It's a non issue to you, and that's exactly what you told ravenshire.

I think the biblical God (clearly a finite being) DOES exist. What does NOT exist are the self-contradictory caricatures of Him, based on Greek philosophy, propounded by post-Plato Christian and Jewish scholars. Prior to that rascal Plato, I suspect that most Hebrews had a very accurate understanding of God.

(Today at 3:10 am)Jal Wrote:

(Today at 3:06 am)Deesse23 Wrote: You seem smart enough to know that the god the Hebrews had in mind can't possibly exist, yet you are a Christian.

Not getting you. Yahweh can't possibly exist?

The earth is not flat genesis 1 is wrong on every single claim, bats aren't birds, we have found nobody dwelling in the outer atmosphere, and Trinity is logically incoherent

(Today at 3:13 am)Jal Wrote: I think the biblical God (clearly a finite being) DOES exist. What does NOT exist are the self-contradictory caricatures of Him, based on Greek philosophy, propounded by post-Plato Christian and Jewish scholars. Prior to that rascal Plato, I suspect that most Hebrews had a very accurate understanding of God.

What did the HEBREW AUTHORS think. Nobody gives a shit what Greeks think about Hebrew gods, as much as the Greeks cared what the Hebrews thought about zeus

(Today at 3:12 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(Today at 3:06 am)Jal Wrote: An actualized/ realized infinity is a stupid self-contradictory concept.  That's pretty much all I need to know. 

For a non-Christian, stupid readings are acceptable, as he has no incentive to defend the Bible.

For me, they are not acceptable.

That was gibberish and a nin answer, and we both know it.

I take it as a "not at all"

What makes you think you can make informed statements about which you have NO education about? Does that question ring a bell wrt to the course of this thread? You remember how ravenshire asked you exactly this wrt science?

The problem with you is: you see no problem with being completely ignorant. It's a non issue to you, and that's exactly what you told ravenshire.

What makes me qualified to criticize popular views? The stupidity of those views. Even a relatively stupid person can easily find the flaws in stupid views. Let's consider another blatant example.  The traditional view is:
1. God is immutable, for example immutably holy,  omniscient,  omnipotent, etc.
2. In Nazareth, God became man.

How can an immutable God change/mutate Himself into a man? Can any theory be more stupid? Do I really need a doctorate in theology to raise an objection here?

Even Norm Geisler admitted that the traditional view requires the human mind to embrace contradictions. Geisler's hope is that God's mind, being infinite, sees things at a higher level where those contradictions are resolved. This is completely stupidity, it's essentially a cult, to embrace blatant contradictions.

(Today at 3:15 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(Today at 3:10 am)Jal Wrote: Not getting you. Yahweh can't possibly exist?

The earth is not flat genesis 1 is wrong on every single claim, bats aren't birds, we have found nobody  dwelling in the outer atmosphere, and Trinity is logically incoherent

The Trinity is incoherent? Identifying three subsections of a material mind is incoherent?  In that case, which one cell of your brain is the real you? I mean, you're saying that multiple parts is incoherent, right? As usual, you're not making any sense.

I believe the Bible is prolific with literal texts but not 100% literal. It's probably more literal than you think. Take for example the four corners of the earth.  When God shaped the earth he probably formed it flat momentarily as an accomodation  for primitive readers and then immediately rounded it into a globe.  Thus the four corners of the earth still exist in the sense of those pieces of earth now occupying four (presently unknown) locations on the rounded globe. Such an accomodation still makes for a literal text even it is confusing to modern readers. 

"Bats aren't birds."  I haven't heard this objection to Scripture. I imagine it's trivial. 

"We have found nobody  dwelling in the outer atmosphere." God usually keeps the heavenly city hidden, although He showed it to the prophets.

(Today at 2:34 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

Jal Wrote:I literally guffawed on that one.  Almost fell out of my chair. Give me a moment to recover my composure, and then maybe I'll respond.

That's because you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect: you are dumb as shit but full of yourself.

Jal Wrote:Matter is inherently conscious, but consciousness evolves in the sense of maturing. These are not mutually exclusive.

Regardless of whether consciousness is basic or matured, the argument's premise about natural selection still fails. Natural selection relies on physical cause-and-effect sequences—where physical inputs (like low blood sugar) reliably trigger physical outputs (seeking food). Adding a layer of "maturing consciousness" is functionally irrelevant to whether physical natural selection operates in a deterministic system.

Jal Wrote:I am educating people to the fact that free will doesn't make much sense unless it is defined as a force that moves matter. SOMETHING must be self-moving in principle, to get the ball rolling. If choice A is: a piece of matter moves by free will, what is choice B? Randomness? Chaotic movement, that is, a RANDOM self-movement? Choice A aligns better with our empirical experience, because reality isn't pure random chaos, it has a degree of stability to it (viz the law of inertia), a stability that is primarily interrupted when we exert free will to move our bodies in ways  unpredictable to an observer (viz he saw me moving left but was not able to predict, mathematically, at what moment I would shift direction).

Again, you are using flawed physics, category errors, and a false dichotomy.

Choice B isn't "random chaos." Non-conscious matter moves via deterministic natural laws (like gravity), which are neither random nor driven by conscious choice.

You are also confusing complexity with free will. An observer's inability to predict your next step is a result of system complexity, not proof of free will. Weather patterns and turbulence are equally unpredictable to an observer, but they aren't conscious.

And so on.

I freely admit that some processes (for example if I line up some dominos) are highly deterministic when free agents don't interfere.

But such a domino effect doesn't make for a first motion/ first mover that gets the ball rolling. And as I mentioned earlier, please don't speak to me about an "immaterial force" known as gravity, as even Newton didn't accept that kind of immaterial nonsense. 

SOMETHING must be self-moving (something got the ball rolling), which leaves us with either (A) self-movement  by free will or (B) random chaotic movement unexplained/ unpredictable.  Clearly choice A is the more rational choice and aligns better with human experience.

(Today at 3:46 am)Jal Wrote:

(Today at 2:34 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: That's because you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect: you are dumb as shit but full of yourself.


Regardless of whether consciousness is basic or matured, the argument's premise about natural selection still fails. Natural selection relies on physical cause-and-effect sequences—where physical inputs (like low blood sugar) reliably trigger physical outputs (seeking food). Adding a layer of "maturing consciousness" is functionally irrelevant to whether physical natural selection operates in a deterministic system.



Again, you are using flawed physics, category errors, and a false dichotomy.

Choice B isn't "random chaos." Non-conscious matter moves via deterministic natural laws (like gravity), which are neither random nor driven by conscious choice.

You are also confusing complexity with free will. An observer's inability to predict your next step is a result of system complexity, not proof of free will. Weather patterns and turbulence are equally unpredictable to an observer, but they aren't conscious.

And so on.

I freely admit that some processes (for example if I line up some dominos) are highly deterministic when free agents don't interfere.

But such a domino effect doesn't make for a first motion/ first mover that gets the ball rolling. And as I mentioned earlier, please don't speak to me about an "immaterial force" known as gravity, as even Newton didn't accept that kind of immaterial nonsense. 

SOMETHING must be self-moving (something got the ball rolling), which leaves us with either (A) self-movement  by free will or (B) random chaotic movement unexplained/ unpredictable.  Clearly choice A is the more rational choice and aligns better with human experience.

So, Plato was a 'rascal', but Aristotle was yer man? Got it.

Boru

Edit: Almost forgot - panpsychism is utter rubbish. Carry on.