Evidence?

[fr0d0]

Completely besides the point. But don't let us stop you. You obviously need to get this out of your system.

[theVOID]

Completely besides the point. But don't let us stop you. You obviously need to get this out of your system.

It is not beside the point, it is the point. The argument for god so often relies on completely unsubstantiated assertions and is something that needs to be addressed. It is foolish to make decisions that affect your entire world view based on unsubstantiated assumptions about existence, there is absolutely no reason to believe that these assumptions are true aside from wishful thinking and pitiful attempts to rescue the rapidly fading top-down concept of origins (God).

You can try to defend your conclusions with speculative claims, but in terms of a coherent process for arriving at truth statements, it is a complete failure.

[fr0d0]

...if you use completely inapplicable scientific method.

Of course if you're willing to think, then it's a completely different ball game. Proven logic to you is "wishful thinking". Yet another baseless assertion.

[theVOID]

...if you use completely inapplicable scientific method.

Of course if you're willing to think, then it's a completely different ball game. Proven logic to you is "wishful thinking". Yet another baseless assertion.

You mean if you're willing to draw your conclusions based NOT on any objective standard of evidence...

If you can provide no solid reasoning for why your hypothetical concepts MUST exist then you have chosen to believe these things for NO VALID REASON, thus wishful thinking designed entirely to substantiate your own belief.

[fr0d0]

It would be logically absurd to base conclusions of the question of God on objective evidence. But of course you insist that this only constitutes solid reasoning. Nice restriction. Luckily for me, I'm not playing the absurd game.

[Retorth]

What on earth has that got to do with our conversation here?? Or the point you quote to reply to??? I don't think I should address it here (it's been addressed many times already recently anyway).

You have been trying to tell me that god "gives you the choice" but if you screw up it is your own doing so this very much is the point. Now I'm agreeing with you but you don't accept because you realize now how very foolish it sounds.

As I said above, god is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent so he would have known I was going to take that heroin and it would have been part of his ultimate plan as everything else is.

The point is you answer the question without invoking God. Does it mean that you do not have free will to buy and use Heroin solely because you know it will be harmful to you?

We are discussing about the religious stand point, not the non-religious. That is the whole point of my asking these questions to begin with, to understand your view point which instead of sharing with me, you merely attack mine. :S

The entire time I would, in that scenario, have handled the heroin in my own doing, obviously because god to me does not exist (Before you start attacking this I shall state that he cannot be proven nor disproven). Nobody controls me, nobody condemns me, I do the crime I do the time.

Now, what were you saying about this with respect to your omniscient and omnipotent god and his indecisiveness, not forgetting he would obviously know I would be handling heroin and it was in his almighty plan?

[fr0d0]

Alright, there is no such thing as free will then. Lets see, god is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent. (Please, correct me if I am wrong) If so, he knows whats going to happen and how everything will eventually turn out then.

If a baby is born deformed with one arm missing, or perhaps born with an additional finger or toe, does the baby choose this? Obviously not. God must have planned for it to happen then, yes? All in god's wonderous plan.

What on earth has that got to do with our conversation here?? Or the point you quote to reply to??? I don't think I should address it here (it's been addressed many times already recently anyway).

You have been trying to tell me that god "gives you the choice" but if you screw up it is your own doing so this very much is the point. Now I'm agreeing with you but you don't accept because you realize now how very foolish it sounds.

I haven't been telling you that - you have been telling me. Plus adding the nonsensical "god is indecisive OR sadistic".

Here's what I say: God gives you the choice and you are at liberty to choose to believe in him or not. Not believing in him equates to choosing poor health.

"I don't beieve in him because you realize now how very foolish it sounds"? Seriously.. are you taking something?
1. You say that I say there is no free will - what???
2. God (as defined in Christianity) is all knowing and all powerful - yep
3. Do babies choose to be born without limbs - do I really have to answer this?
4. Limbless babies are in God's plan - yes
An assumption being that God = sadistic or indecisive.

These questions never touch the question of choice. You add in the fallacious choice option where there is obviously never a choice.

The answer: God created nature/ this physical reality good and bad: to us. Sadly the world does not revolve around us as you'd egotistically like it to do. We take our place in the grand plan.

As I said above, god is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent so he would have known I was going to take that heroin and it would have been part of his ultimate plan as everything else is.

The point is you answer the question without invoking God. Does it mean that you do not have free will to buy and use Heroin solely because you know it will be harmful to you?

We are discussing about the religious stand point, not the non-religious. That is the whole point of my asking these questions to begin with, to understand your view point which instead of sharing with me, you merely attack mine. :S

The entire time I would, in that scenario, have handled the heroin in my own doing, obviously because god to me does not exist (Before you start attacking this I shall state that he cannot be proven nor disproven). Nobody controls me, nobody condemns me, I do the crime I do the time.

Now, what were you saying about this with respect to your omniscient and omnipotent god and his indecisiveness, not forgetting he would obviously know I would be handling heroin and it was in his almighty plan?

Yet again you dodge the question.

I want you to answer the non religious question to see if the secular answer would correlate to the religious answer. If you can't justify the secular answer then it would seem illogical to condemn the religious answer. This is purely me trying to defend my viewpoint, but you refuse to answer (for the 4th time now?).

It's ok. I realise now that you have absolutely no thoughtful understanding of your beliefs at all. I am happy to leave it here if you are.

[Retorth]

Yet again you dodge the question.

I want you to answer the non religious question to see if the secular answer would correlate to the religious answer.

I did? Please see below:

The entire time I would, in that scenario, have handled the heroin in my own doing, obviously because god to me does not exist (Before you start attacking this I shall state that he cannot be proven nor disproven). Nobody controls me, nobody condemns me, I do the crime I do the time.

Oh and one more thing, when I said "nobody condemns me' I am sure you'll say that I am condemning myself and I do agree in this case that by taking the heroin I would in fact be condemning myself. Just to clarify on that, when I said "nobody condemns me", I actually mean before I even begin to do any wrongdoing. Hope that prevents any misunderstanding.

"I don't beieve in him because you realize now how very foolish it sounds"? Seriously.. are you taking something?

I do not know how you actually read and I sincerely do not appreciate your personal attacks, but what I said was:

Now I'm agreeing with you but you don't accept because you realize now how very foolish it sounds.

If you wish to quote, please at least do so properly, I'd really appreciate it.

1. You say that I say there is no free will - what???

I still think the issue of freewill is questionable.

2. God (as defined in Christianity) is all knowing and all powerful - yep

Ok.

3. Do babies choose to be born without limbs - do I really have to answer this?

That's alright, thanks.

4. Limbless babies are in God's plan - yes

I see.


I understand your frustration and I apologize if I misunderstood and misinterpreted some of your points. I do not wish to be stubborn in acknowledging when I am wrong and I certainly appreciate your time in explaining these points in finer detail for my benefit. I understand that I was indeed wrong in certain points and again, I sincerely apologize.

[lilphil1989]

4. Limbless babies are in God's plan - yes

How do you know?

[fr0d0]

Yet again you dodge the question.

I want you to answer the non religious question to see if the secular answer would correlate to the religious answer.

I did? Please see below:

The entire time I would, in that scenario, have handled the heroin in my own doing, obviously because god to me does not exist (Before you start attacking this I shall state that he cannot be proven nor disproven). Nobody controls me, nobody condemns me, I do the crime I do the time.

Oh and one more thing, when I said "nobody condemns me' I am sure you'll say that I am condemning myself and I do agree in this case that by taking the heroin I would in fact be condemning myself. Just to clarify on that, when I said "nobody condemns me", I actually mean before I even begin to do any wrongdoing. Hope that prevents any misunderstanding.

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.

"I don't believe in him because you realize now how very foolish it sounds"? Seriously.. are you taking something?

I do not know how you actually read and I sincerely do not appreciate your personal attacks, but what I said was:

Now I'm agreeing with you but you don't accept because you realize now how very foolish it sounds.

If you wish to quote, please at least do so properly, I'd really appreciate it.

I was paraphrasing. I credit you with enough intelligence to realize this. I quoted your exact words in the same post so you could hardly accuse me of misquoting!

You said: "Now I am agreeing with you" or in other words: "I agree with you" or "You say this". You are saying that I mean: "You (me, fr0d0) realize how foolish your belief sounds" - when the evidence of what we have discovered says quite the opposite: that my belief (God) is consistent and logical and that your assertion here is entirely illogical.

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.

1. You say that I say there is no free will - what???

I still think the issue of freewill is questionable.

But you can't or won't articulate why.

I understand your frustration and I apologize if I misunderstood and misinterpreted some of your points. I do not wish to be stubborn in acknowledging when I am wrong and I certainly appreciate your time in explaining these points in finer detail for my benefit. I understand that I was indeed wrong in certain points and again, I sincerely apologize.

That's very gracious of you.

---

4. Limbless babies are in God's plan - yes

How do you know?

Assuming God is all knowing, he knows everything that will happen.