(August 22, 2012 at 4:36 pm)Chuck Wrote: It is entirely possible that your mother fucked a goat and through a never observed or reproduced process gave you birth. Should we based our world view on the entirely possible but entirely improbable that you so happen out of sheer idiocy want to believe to be true?

And I thought all my body hair was because I had Scottish blood in me! Now I know better.

(August 22, 2012 at 3:49 pm)spockrates Wrote: So you are thinking time is already static, and nothing anyone decides

With the precog present no one decides. See how difficult it is to even form a thought about this once we invoke the precog?

Quote:to do and does will change time. You might be right.

There is no changing that which is predestined. It doesn't really matter whether or not time actually behaves this way, but the the example of a precog and predestination demand that it must (if we are going to accept them).

Quote:Then again, time might be constantly changing. Rather than like stained-glass, it might be more of a kaleidoscope. If you, or I were to travel to the future, and return to the past, the outcome we witnessed ahead of time might not be the outcome that actually turns out to be when the future arrives again.

Then we are left with no precog, just as I mentioned many posts ago.

Quote:The outcome we saw in our time-traveling holiday might have been only one of many possible outcomes.

Each within it's own timeline is equally as predestined btw.....

Quote:But I've asked myself, "What if Rythm is correct and time is changeless and free choice is merely an illusion? Would this be proof that God does not exist?"

You're looking for proof in an ass backwards fashion, and that's whats gotten us into this precognitive pickle to begin with. Are you actually surprised that no matter what criticisms I come up with you have been able to conclude "god"? I'm not.

Quote: The reason why I asked myself is because Calvinists and others who hold to the tenets of Reformed Theology would agree with you and say freewill is unreal, and all that we say, think and do, all that was and is and is to come, is predetermined by God.

And yet they would have us be responsible for our sins, for our choices. They aren't escaping this any better than you are.

Quote:(Yes, I understand you disagree that anyone or anything caused time to be static, but I'm wondering how time being static and freewill being an illusion is any proof that God cannot possibly exist, since this is exactly what Calvinists believe.)

Again, I don't agree or disagree with anything of the sort, I'm trying to explain the requirements for precognition and how they relate to "choice".

I'm not looking to determine whether or not your god (or the calvinists god) exists Spock, I'm laying out some problems with these claimed attributes of fictional characters and their proposed interactions with we mere mortals. At what point during any of this have I ever tried to make the point that because of precognition your god does not exist? I think you're attempting to divert the flow of conversation away from what you have realized is a lost cause, a sinking ship..the precognitive god and predestined universe in which human beings are responsible for their choices. I think that the implications of these claims are plainly clear. The precognitive creator god in a predestined universe becomes the tormentor of machines that it itself created for no other reason than that they are machines. Not exactly a flattering appraisal of this god (I like to remind Calvinists of this whenever they present the opportunity btw.)

Quote:Of course not, for choice is an illusion and as unreal as God! But don't you mean you cannot honestly say you had any choice at all? If someone asks why you don't love them, I suppose you can sincerely say, "It's not I who chose to hate you; Time made me do it!"

LOL, no, because I don't remember choosing those whom I love or those whom I do not, regardless of whether or not I make real choices or illusory choices, I don't recall ever having had this one even as an illusory option.

No, I tell them "because I don't".

(August 22, 2012 at 4:26 pm)spockrates Wrote: But who is to say the future to God (if he exists) is not dynamic, rather than static? Since we've never been to the future, how do we know what it is like? It's entirely possible that God, watching heaven in the future, would see me appear in heaven, then disappear, then reappear again, as I in the present make choices that affect my final future outcome. As time progresses in the present, the outcome in the future might constantly change. I might, like a light bulb, flicker on and then off and then on again and off again and finally stay on (or off) when I breath my last breath in the present. Those who no longer disappear from the future in heaven might be those who are no longer living in the present, and so have no chance to change their future. In this case, God's precognition of the future (or omniscience, or all-knowingness, or whatever you want to call it) would always be contingent on what you, or I, or anyone chooses to do in the present. Rather than something set in stone, the future would be alive, and moving and constantly evolving before God's eyes.

Sure, give up precognition (non-contingent knowledge of the future) and the paradox is resolved.

(August 22, 2012 at 4:54 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 22, 2012 at 3:49 pm)spockrates Wrote: Of course not, for choice is an illusion and as unreal as God! But don't you mean you cannot honestly say you had any choice at all? If someone asks why you don't love them, I suppose you can sincerely say, "It's not I who chose to hate you; Time made me do it!"

LOL, no, because I don't remember choosing those whom I love or those whom I do not, regardless of whether or not I make real choices or illusory choices, I don't recall ever having had this one even as an illusory option.

No, I tell them "because I don't".

So when you love, would you say you don't choose to be patient or kind; you just are. You don't choose to not be envious, boastful, or proud; you just aren't. You don't choose to avoid being rude, self-seeking, easily angered, or avoid keeping a record of wrongs; you just don't. You don't choose to delight in evil; you just don't. Nor do you choose to rejoice in the truth; you just do. You cannot say you choose to protect, trust, hope and preserver, because you never do choose to love; you just do. Is this true?

Isn't it true for you? These are habits of attitude and thought, largely based on our experiences and previous choices combined with our predispositions. Do you wake up in the morning and go over whether you want to delight in evil today? It's called character.

(August 22, 2012 at 5:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(August 22, 2012 at 4:26 pm)spockrates Wrote: But who is to say the future to God (if he exists) is not dynamic, rather than static? Since we've never been to the future, how do we know what it is like? It's entirely possible that God, watching heaven in the future, would see me appear in heaven, then disappear, then reappear again, as I in the present make choices that affect my final future outcome. As time progresses in the present, the outcome in the future might constantly change. I might, like a light bulb, flicker on and then off and then on again and off again and finally stay on (or off) when I breath my last breath in the present. Those who no longer disappear from the future in heaven might be those who are no longer living in the present, and so have no chance to change their future. In this case, God's precognition of the future (or omniscience, or all-knowingness, or whatever you want to call it) would always be contingent on what you, or I, or anyone chooses to do in the present. Rather than something set in stone, the future would be alive, and moving and constantly evolving before God's eyes.

Sure, give up precognition (non-contingent knowledge of the future) and the paradox is resolved.

Who is to say the future is one, but not many? Who is to say that omniscience is not the ability to see only one outcome, but countless billions of possible outcomes, and to act in the present according to all the possible outcomes foreseen? Isn't this what someone does when he plays chess, but on a much smaller scale? Rather than avoiding the argument, I think I'm addressing it, though in a way you did not expect. Use your imagination, Mister! Have a little fun with the wonder of what it must be like to be all-knowing and to know all. It cannot possibly be as dull and unremarkable as even the most creative person can imagine. Can it?

---

(August 22, 2012 at 5:13 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Isn't it true for you? These are habits of attitude and thought, largely based on our experiences and previous choices combined with our predispositions. Do you wake up in the morning and go over whether you want to delight in evil today? It's called character.

They're not my examples of how to love.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...on=NIV1984

But yes, I suppose it highly likely that my character is no better than your own.

---

(August 22, 2012 at 4:45 pm)Homo Sapiens Wrote:

(August 22, 2012 at 4:26 pm)spockrates Wrote:

But who is to say the future to God (if he exists) is not dynamic, rather than static? Since we've never been to the future, how do we know what it is like? It's entirely possible that God, watching heaven in the future, would see me appear in heaven, then disappear, then reappear again, as I in the present make choices that affect my final future outcome. As time progresses in the present, the outcome in the future might constantly change. I might, like a light bulb, flicker on and then off and then on again and off again and finally stay on (or off) when I breath my last breath in the present. Those who no longer disappear from the future in heaven might be those who are no longer living in the present, and so have no chance to change their future. In this case, God's precognition of the future (or omniscience, or all-knowingness, or whatever you want to call it) would always be contingent on what you, or I, or anyone chooses to do in the present. Rather than something set in stone, the future would be alive, and moving and constantly evolving before God's eyes.

i will disprove your stupid theory: When our bodies die,afterlife isnt possible,posthumously mental life REQUIRES to restart the biological and physical life. If we would like to live again we would need our bodies.

So when we die our bodies rot,we dont fly to another magical place. It isnt possible.

Also when you were born,you were an atheist,until your parents started to fill your immature head with religious lies.

Hi, HS. Actually, my parents were both agnostic and did not try to teach me anything about the God they did not know. I rebelled by becoming a Christian!



I agree life with a body would be far superior to life without one, if such is possible. (Which is one reason why I hope the Bible is correct when it speaks of a future resurrection of the bodies of those who will live forever in them.) But please tell me how you know it is impossible for the mind to exist apart from the brain. I guess what I'm asking is this: What is the mind?

(August 14, 2012 at 3:51 pm)spockrates Wrote: What are they? Reason for asking: I've been told by thoughtful atheists that looking for logical contradictions in Christian beliefs, or within the pages of the Bible is a waste of time. The explanation given is that there are much better reasons to give up on being Christian. I'm just wondering what the better reasons are so I can try them on and see how they fit.

Reasons? I really don't see any reasons to especially quit christianity.
A person might quit christianity with the following reasons, which are personal, and not general.

*Loss of faith, due to:
-personal conclusions about the existence of God in general
-personal conclusions about the correctness of christianity
-personal conclusions about the correctness of religions in general

(August 22, 2012 at 5:15 pm)spockrates Wrote: Hi, HS. Actually, my parents were both agnostic and did not try to teach me anything about the God they did not know. I rebelled by becoming a Christian!

I agree life with a body would be far superior to life without one, if such is possible. (Which is one reason why I hope the Bible is correct when it speaks of a future resurrection of the bodies of those who will live forever in them.) But please tell me how you know it is impossible for the mind to exist apart from the brain. I guess what I'm asking is this: What is the mind?

My parents are atheists and they didnt force their ideas on me.

we exist because we think,we are certain of our existence.As soon this ends we are no more.
And why are you relaying your sources on  thousands of years old documents?
 
and for the end just  believing in god makes him real. 

Spockrates Wrote:I rebelled by becoming a Christian!

Worst. Rebel. Ever.

(August 22, 2012 at 5:10 pm)spockrates Wrote: Who is to say the future is one, but not many? Who is to say that omniscience is not the ability to see only one outcome, but countless billions of possible outcomes, and to act in the present according to all the possible outcomes foreseen?

Who indeed, once we've gone down this road. But this is even more troubling for the judeo-christian god, and I've already begun to elaborate upon why, twice... posts ago.

Quote: Isn't this what someone does when he plays chess, but on a much smaller scale? Rather than avoiding the argument, I think I'm addressing it, though in a way you did not expect.

At no point does the chess player possess precognition, even though they may accurately determine the moves of their opponent, it isn't precognition that allows them to achieve this. See the above for what I may expect (or what you may propose that could be expected), and reread our posts.

Quote:the Use your imagination, Mister! Have a little fun with the wonder of what it must be like to be all-knowing and to know all. It cannot possibly be as dull and unremarkable as even the most creative person can imagine. Can it?

I wouldn't know, I couldn't rule out the utter dullness of omniscience personally, maybe Mister can, neither of us having experienced it. An eternity without so much as a single surprise....idk Spock...