Prayer?

[Ryantology]

The atheist and the theist are both capable of complex and insightful thought. It's just that the atheist acknowledges the barrier separating fantasy and reality, while the theist tells everyone it is a sin to point out its existence.

[Drich]

As it is still being brought up, obviously you haven't defeated the argument to anyone's satisfaction except your own.

But if you can't answer it, that's cool.

It's being brought up because you haven't read your brothers failed attempts to apply predestination to "God's Plan."

This is an arguement from ignorance.

[Epimethean]

No, it isn't-at least until you get going again, Drich. Ignorance is your purview.

[Ryantology]

As it is still being brought up, obviously you haven't defeated the argument to anyone's satisfaction except your own.

But if you can't answer it, that's cool.

It's being brought up because you haven't read your brothers failed attempts to apply predestination to "God's Plan."

This is an arguement from ignorance.

Ignorance of what? Plans? The very concept of a plan demands some level of predisposition to all variables if it is carried out perfectly (which we expect from an allegedly perfect being). So, if every action I take is according to The Plan, I should never be judged for anything I do, because either I was programmed by God to do these things directly, or programmed to operate within a certain range of behaviors.

What I'm saying is that if people really do suffer in Hell, there can only be two reasons why. One, God specifically selected certain people to end up there, which can only be possible if he's holding humanity to a standard of morality far beyond his meager capacity to match, let alone exceed, or two: he is angry because some people act against his wishes, which can only be possible if he half-assed his Plan.

It is impossible to reconcile truly free will with the idea of God's Plan. If there is a God and he really has all his shit figured out ahead of time, what we call 'free will' is only being able to choose from a very narrow set of variables when they are offered to us. Which is, of course, the way we understand free will to work (as it is obvious we cannot exercise the vast majority of the things we mentally conceive).

You've dismissed the argument simply, therefore, your smoking gun retort should be able to be restated just as simply, if you actually have one. Of course, you do not, but I'd prefer you either humor my ignorance or just ignore it.

[Drich]

Ignorance of what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

In short an arguement from ignorance asserts that a statement is true unless proven false.

Your arguement from ignorance:

As it is still being brought up, obviously you haven't defeated the argument to anyone's satisfaction

You are saying that the arguement you keep bring up is valid because I have not defeated it.

Plans? The very concept of a plan demands some level of predisposition to all variables if it is carried out perfectly (which we expect from an allegedly perfect being). So, if every action I take is according to The Plan, I should never be judged for anything I do, because either I was programmed by God to do these things directly, or programmed to operate within a certain range of behaviors.

What if the plan is to provide a realm in which an indivisual's choice is prmitted?

What I'm saying is that if people really do suffer in Hell, there can only be two reasons why. One, God specifically selected certain people to end up there, which can only be possible if he's holding humanity to a standard of morality far beyond his meager capacity to match, let alone exceed, or two: he is angry because some people act against his wishes, which can only be possible if he half-assed his Plan.

Or three He is hold people to the choices they make in this life. If they choose eternal seperation from God then He simply holds them to it.

It is impossible to reconcile truly free will with the idea of God's Plan.

again define "God's plan and free will."

If there is a God and he really has all his shit figured out ahead of time, what we call 'free will' is only being able to choose from a very narrow set of variables when they are offered to us. Which is, of course, the way we understand free will to work (as it is obvious we cannot exercise the vast majority of the things we mentally conceive).

As I suspected you are working with a philosphy based in the greek philosphy of free will. I have identified this as 'Complete freedom of Choice.' Because one is free to choose whatever he wants without fear or thought given to consenquence. Know the bible does not say we have been given this freedom of Choice.
Freewill as the bible describes it is the ablity to be outside the expressed will of God. In otherwords it is the ablity to sin, and to find redemption for said sin.

You've dismissed the argument simply, therefore, your smoking gun retort should be able to be restated just as simply, if you actually have one. Of course, you do not, but I'd prefer you either humor my ignorance or just ignore it.

Again, your 'ignorance' is not limited to you. It's like you guys were punched off of an assembly line of thought, or how to think because the arguement is the same no matter which one of you uses it.
You start by redefining 'free will' and then accuse God of not fitting the defination you provide. Here is a novel idea. If you are going to use the bible to define God then also use it to define the principle in which you are holding Him against.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or...... how's about we don't use the bible to define anything, because it's clearly insufficient in every regard.

[Ryantology]

You are saying that the arguement you keep bring up is valid because I have not defeated it.

That was my justification for making my argument, not an argument for its validity.

What if the plan is to provide a realm in which an indivisual's choice is prmitted?

Then, God is a neurotic asshole who makes arbitrary rules and inflicts the worst kind of suffering for anyone who breaks them, or doesn't recognize, to his satisfaction, who has the biggest dick in the universe.

Or three He is hold people to the choices they make in this life. If they choose eternal seperation from God then He simply holds them to it.

So, he intentionally devises the capacity for people to fail. He made man flawed, on purpose, and then puts them through torture if they can't overcome the hardships he inflicted.

You'd institutionalize a person who attempted that.

As I suspected you are working with a philosphy based in the greek philosphy of free will. I have identified this as 'Complete freedom of Choice.' Because one is free to choose whatever he wants without fear or thought given to consenquence. Know the bible does not say we have been given this freedom of Choice.
Freewill as the bible describes it is the ablity to be outside the expressed will of God. In otherwords it is the ablity to sin, and to find redemption for said sin.

Being free to fuck up and make up for it is not freedom at all. It's sadism.

You start by redefining 'free will' and then accuse God of not fitting the defination you provide. Here is a novel idea. If you are going to use the bible to define God then also use it to define the principle in which you are holding Him against.

Even if held to the concept of free will as you described it, God comes away looking like a terribly evil fantasy monster who inspires Stockholm Syndrome in his victims. It really doesn't matter how you define God's Plan or 'free will'. God never comes away from this looking plausible and always comes away as a being you could only ever want to worship out of terror.

[Drich]

That was my justification for making my argument, not an argument for its validity.

however you wish to justify it your 'justification' was still an arguement from ignorance. primarly because it excluded 26 pages of texts, and did not consider anything that had been previously stated.

So, he intentionally devises the capacity for people to fail. He made man flawed, on purpose, and then puts them through torture if they can't overcome the hardships he inflicted.

Then explain attonement.

You'd institutionalize a person who attempted that.

we'd instutionalize anyone who thought himself to be or too the role of God upon himself.. Except God.
(Not to say some of you would not try)

Being free to fuck up and make up for it is not freedom at all. It's sadism.

one man's sadism...

Even if held to the concept of free will as you described it, God comes away looking like a terribly evil fantasy monster who inspires Stockholm Syndrome in his victims. It really doesn't matter how you define God's Plan or 'free will'. God never comes away from this looking plausible and always comes away as a being you could only ever want to worship out of terror.

how so please take the time to explain.

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps he did consider it, and then dismissed it, as I do with the majority of your posts.

Whether or not a person is making an argument from ignorance does not hinge on whether or not they agree with your beliefs Drich. I've noticed, by the way, that learning the names of common fallacies has become important to you since you joined. It's actually quite endearing. You still have some work to do with regards to what does or does not constitute those fallacies to which you have learned to connect a name.

[Cyberman]

I actually think it is atheism which lacks depth.

The "drippy theist" thinks something.

The atheist thinks nothing.

Others have beaten me to it but I'll have a crack at it.

I see from this (presumably) pithy phrase that Lion is claiming one of two positions here. Intellectual superiority for the theist position - such as it is - since they "think something" whereas atheists do not think anything and are thus mindlessly following the herd (which is especially and tragically ironic since the phrase bears all the hallmarks of something some random preacher came out with and is being trotted out parrot-fashion for oue entertainment). Either that, or that atheism is an impossible position since it is impossible to think of nothing - though theists come closest when praying. Either way I wish he would just come right out and say what his position on this issue actually is, rather than fucking dance around it as though a pretty phrase has some deeper meaning on its own by virtue of it being said.

In fact, here's one for you, much more honest and to the point than yours:

Atheist: I'll believe it when I see it.
Theist: I'll see it when I believe it.