Posts: 397
Threads: 11
Joined: December 20, 2008
Reputation:
12
RE: Evidence?
October 5, 2009 at 7:44 am
(This post was last modified: October 5, 2009 at 7:45 am by lilphil1989.)
fr0d0 Wrote: (October 5, 2009 at 6:41 am)lilphil1989 Wrote: fr0d0 Wrote:4. Limbless babies are in God's plan - yes
How do you know?
Assuming God is all knowing, he knows everything that will happen.
Is that a valid assumption? What's the rationale for making it?
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
Posts: 831
Threads: 24
Joined: August 15, 2009
Reputation:
5
RE: Evidence?
October 5, 2009 at 8:56 am
(October 5, 2009 at 7:27 am)fr0d0 Wrote: OK thankyou. So you are saying that if you took the heroin you would indeed be doing something with your own free will was harmful to you therefore proving that God also does not limit free will by giving you a choice to do something either healthy or unhealthy.
Yes I quite agree, however I must clarify, I am not referring to him limiting our free will by not allowing us to make unhealthy choices. I am referring to him condemning us for not believing in him.
fr0d0 Wrote:I am not attacking you. Just trying to get an answer from you about your assertions. Something you seem very reticent to do for some reason.
Questioning my ability by asking me if I took "something" is considered an attack in my opinion. However, if you think it is not, fair enough. I understand where you are coming from.
fr0d0 Wrote:Retorth Wrote:I still think the issue of freewill is questionable.
But you can't or won't articulate why.
I already told you why I feel our free will is questionable with regards to being condemned for not believing in god. You have provided me with your highly informed view on why that is not true. I understand your view, I am not challenging you. Not everything is a challenge. I am here to learn and understand. As I said, if I am wrong to you, I am wrong.
fr0d0 Wrote:That's very gracious of you.
Thank you.
The dark side awaits YOU...AngryAtheism
"Only the dead have seen the end of war..." - Plato
“Those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible have either not read it or not understood it...” - Richard Dawkins
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Evidence?
October 5, 2009 at 9:10 am
(This post was last modified: October 5, 2009 at 9:22 am by fr0d0.)
I'll have a go...
"God is" "I am" = God = non temporal
God as potentiality: the/ first principle/ prime mover, is logically infinite and perfect. From that it follows that he is also all knowing.
As non temporal he exists outside of time and sees time all at once. Therefore he knows everything at any point in time in our temporal zone.
(October 5, 2009 at 8:56 am)Retorth Wrote: (October 5, 2009 at 7:27 am)fr0d0 Wrote: OK thankyou. So you are saying that if you took the heroin you would indeed be doing something with your own free will was harmful to you therefore proving that God also does not limit free will by giving you a choice to do something either healthy or unhealthy.
Yes I quite agree, however I must clarify, I am not referring to him limiting our free will by not allowing us to make unhealthy choices. I am referring to him condemning us for not believing in him.
Right and I have shown, I hope, how the choice 'God' equals the choice 'health'.
(October 5, 2009 at 8:56 am)Retorth Wrote: fr0d0 Wrote:I am not attacking you. Just trying to get an answer from you about your assertions. Something you seem very reticent to do for some reason.
Questioning my ability by asking me if I took "something" is considered an attack in my opinion. However, if you think it is not, fair enough. I understand where you are coming from.
I apologise if that's what I did/ came over as doing.
(October 5, 2009 at 8:56 am)Retorth Wrote: I understand your view, I am not challenging you. Not everything is a challenge. I am here to learn and understand. As I said, if I am wrong to you, I am wrong.
If you have a view different from mine I'd like to know how you defend/ justify that point to see if I'm right in holding my position. Failing to justify your position leaves us both no better off.
Posts: 397
Threads: 11
Joined: December 20, 2008
Reputation:
12
RE: Evidence?
October 5, 2009 at 11:43 am
(October 5, 2009 at 9:10 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I'll have a go...
"God is" "I am" = God = non temporal
God as potentiality: the/ first principle/ prime mover, is logically infinite and perfect.
Could you clarify this a little, please?
Maybe I'm misreading it or I'm just straight up stupid  but I have no idea what on earth you're trying to say here
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Evidence?
October 5, 2009 at 12:35 pm
"God is" "I am" = God = non temporal < this bit is biblical text
Sorry, I got that wrong!
God is actuality/ divine spark/ creator
Actuality as the first mover must be before time/ outside time. Actuality must be infinite & perfection. It must also be knowledgeable to cause intelligence. The actuality, God, must exist outside time and therefore have knowledge of all time.
Posts: 3989
Threads: 79
Joined: June 30, 2009
Reputation:
41
RE: Evidence?
October 5, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Fr0d0,
Quote:"God is" "I am" = God = non temporal < this bit is biblical text
This is NOT biblical text but rather an interpretation of such.
Also, pure actuality is in actuality an Invisible Pink Unicorn(BBHH). It's ok though, you get that one wrong all the time. 
Rhizo
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Evidence?
October 5, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Not an interpretation but a translation
Posts: 3989
Threads: 79
Joined: June 30, 2009
Reputation:
41
RE: Evidence?
October 5, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Fr0d0,
You are right, it is a translation; from English to Fr0d0speak.
Rhizo
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Evidence?
October 5, 2009 at 3:40 pm
(This post was last modified: October 5, 2009 at 4:01 pm by fr0d0.)
Haha! 
And just to prove it isn't fr0glish...
Quote:The phrase ehyeh asher ehyeh (rendered as "I AM THAT I AM" in the KJV) derives from the Qal imperfect first person form of the verb hayah: "I will be," and therefore indicates a connection between the Name YHVH and being itself. YHVH is the Source of all being and has being inherent in Himself (i.e., He is necessary Being). Everything else is contingent being that derives existence from Him. The name YHVH also bespeaks the utter transcendence of God. In Himself, God is beyond all "predications" or attributes of language: He is the Source and Foundation of all possibility of utterance and thus is beyond all definite descriptions.
source: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_o.../yhvh.html
Posts: 397
Threads: 11
Joined: December 20, 2008
Reputation:
12
RE: Evidence?
October 5, 2009 at 5:49 pm
fr0d0 Wrote:Actuality as the first mover must be before time/ outside time.
Why?
fr0d0 Wrote:Actuality must be infinite & perfection.
Why?
fr0d0 Wrote:The actuality, God, must exist outside time and therefore have knowledge of all time.
I don't think that a being that exists outside of time (if that even has any meaning, which I'm not convinced it does) must necessarily have knowledge of all time
Why must your god exist outside of time?
Apologies if the first questions seem a little childish, but I find that questions in this manner can sometimes be the most incisive.
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
|
