Fruitcake MIDI Forum Treasury

[Yoshgunn]

I'm talking about your question. Why does the "fact" that God can't create a being greater than Himself mean He can't create other stuff, IE the universe? I don't see how not being able to do so prohibits Him from creating other things.
_________________
IM THE DUDE PLAYIN THE DUDE DISGUISED AS ANOTHER DUDE

I FORGOT HOW I WAS GONNA END THIS??!

"Good Lord, child get it right - I did not "show you my ass", I mooned you. There is a very important legal difference." - Chzrm3

[Izzhov]

[chzrm3]

[Izzhov]

[chzrm3]

[Izzhov]

[chzrm3]

[Izzhov]

[Joe]

Here's my input into the topic, since religion isnt something I practice anymore.

Religion + logic = FAIL

Yet, I am glad you believers arent batshit crazy like at another board I frequent. Oh yes. Evolution? LIES. Atheists? SATAN WORSHIPPERS. Logic? NONEXISTANT!

[The Dragon]

Somehow you guys are completely missing the real concept of what I'm trying to say. I'll tell you that if you think time is shaped a certain way and if time behaves a certain way, events will happen a certain way. If time is a fixed series of events, then knowledge of those fixed series of events isn't what takes away free will. It's the fact that it's a fixed series of events.

Somehow every time I say this, it's completely glossed over that I am telling you to, for the sake of this hypothesis, assume these events are fixed. Imagine the movie Groundhog Day. If time is as I am supposing in my hypothesis, if Phil Connors even had any inkling of the repetition of events, he wouldn't be capable at all to change ANY of his actions and change ANY outcomes.

Omniscience is only key in this in that saying that when someone knows exactly what happens next, and not just what is likely to happen or what could happen or what may change slightly... and I'm looking at chzrm and JK9K when I say this... I mean that it can't change. Not one thing. Not that someone is going to make a little slightly different decision. In your "friend" example, that's knowing what will likely happen, not knowing exactly what WILL happen. Your example is knowing a likely probability and not knowing the future that he will stop by and drink milk instead of cola. In my example, your friend would come over and have a can of cola because the timeline can't change and there's literally no way he'd even know or acknowledge it EVEN if someone who did know that he would do this every day without fail until one specific day tried to convince him otherwise.

Think of it like trying to argue with a video recording. And before you reply, bear in mind that I'm telling you, again, that in this example, nothing is capable of changing. If events are all fixed and "recorded" throughout the entire timeline, then there's no way that they can change in the least, thus free will would be impossible and we would be acting according to predetermined actions.

Complete omniscience of actions is only important in this in that knowing explicitly every action which happens next IMPLIES that there is only ONE outcome for EACH decision and ONE outcome for EACH possibility. There is no other possibility. Your friend would come over and drink cola every day until this one specific day where he'd drink milk, then he'd go back to drinking cola BECAUSE it is predetermined that he will. Your friend decides to drink milk that one time because it is predetermined, because there is only one series of events. Not because he changed his mind, although that's what he WILL THINK. Omniscience only says that "I know this one event will happen because it is already predetermined that it will".

If His omniscience is knowing exactly every SPECIFIC, UNALTERABLE event that will happen next, then that implies that the timeline cannot be affected by free will, because all events are predetermined.

Now, if you guys can finally stop turning it around and giving me cases where someone changes their mind once and calling it free will, then I can move on to other things. Otherwise I'm going to keep repeating in my example that the so-called free will decision was predetermined like a recording. Just because the dice are fixed and one time they land on 6 instead of 7 doesn't mean the dice have free will. Meh, this is frustrating.

[Izzhov]

[Joe]

[chzrm3]

[dPaladin]

[The Dragon]

Chzrm, I'm trying to demonstrate a significant possibility for free will being entirely an illusion. You are still ignoring the conditions of the hypothesis. You're basically telling me that trying to be philosophical is stupid because it doesn't fill in with your beliefs.

dPaladin, it's not about whether God is at fault. It's more like writing a play and letting it pan out of its own accord. If someone dies in a play or someone's an evil bastard, does it really matter? If God wrote the script, perhaps He wrote it such that no one was really evil at all.

But you know, all this "no, that doesn't make any sense because it's NOT HOW I SEE THE WORLD" attitude is way too stifling. Maybe if something else interesting comes up in this thread later on.
_________________
Some things are best read out of context.

[Upsilon]

[CommunistBrotherJr]

*Skim-reads the posts on this page*

Why do we have to focus on this abrahamic God? And namely the way that the christo-sphere sees it. It could be that this Jehovah character is too illogical to understand and we just can't be bothered getting up off of lazy arses and finding an alternative religion.
Of course, this also has it's flaws: The time take to find the religion that seems most logically accurate and makes sense is going to take a hefty amount of time. And then you have to subscribe to their beliefs and read and decipher all of said religion's scriptures. So, after finding the religion and understanding the religion you'd surely be dead, or too old to carry out any of the scriptures tasks.

Now, if we think that after sifting through all the different beliefs, and it so happens that one of the Abrahamic Religions is correct the above rhetoric states that we wouldn't complete this and would go to the place where people go when they don't/can't fulfill what TEH BYBUL says, which so happens to be hell.
In that instance whatever you do you're going to hell.

However, if the almighty religion happens to be a bubbhoid (Buddhism like) religion or Hindoid (Hindu like), then you just go around again, however you will forget all you did in this life. So, you're eternally damned to stay on this Earth. Which - may I point out - isn't something good.

All in all (you're just a-nother brick in the wall ) whatever you-do you're not going to find a nice afterlife... It'd be really corny for me to say: "So why bother?" But I'm not going to... So, I'll end it mid-sentence. Soon or later you're go-

------------

Marxism isn't a religion.
_________________
_________________

CommunistBrotherJr has posted - This topic has now more interesting.

[Upsilon]

[JK9000]

Whoa, hold up there. I promised myself I wouldn't touch the whole Problem of Evil discussion, but there's definitely a crack here. Who, exactly, made Satan? Isn't Satan generally considered evil (and, indeed, the source of mankind's sin)? If God created Satan, that proves that God did create evil; if he didn't, it proves that God didn't create everything and Satan somehow came into being on his own.

Well, you know, according to some beliefs, Satan was orginally Lucifer, an angel of Heaven. In his arrogance he tried to rise above God, but he got beat so he an his army was cast into a fiery lake.

In this view, Satan is only the source of mankind's sin in that he is the source of temptation. He was also the snake which persuaded Eve, after all. God created only good things, but but through free will good things can be perverted into evil. This is, in fact, the only way evil exists.

I think was Xenofan who mentioned this evil-only-as-corruption-of-good idea a couple pages ago, attributing it to Descartes and C.S. Lewis. Tolkien was pretty big into it as well.


And, um, the only reason I'm talking about abrahamic-mostly-Christian God is because he's simply the one I'm most knowledgable about. I can think of a couple religions wherein God(s) isn't /aren't almighty being(s), like the Japanese Shinto, but I don't want to go on a tangent about Kami and end up sounding like a jackass because it turns out Wikipedia's been bullshitting me, you know?

[Upsilon]

[Izzhov]

*grumble grumble* logic... *grumble*... doesn't apply to religion... *grumble grumble*...

*leaves discussion*
_________________
BRAND NEW FCMidi Forums!

[CommunistBrotherJr]

[Yoshgunn]

No I think the story went something along the lines of humans being higher in God's esteem, and Lucifer didn't like the thought of a bunch of st00pid munkeys being better than him, so God was like HELL MODE ACTIVATED!

Yeah.
_________________
IM THE DUDE PLAYIN THE DUDE DISGUISED AS ANOTHER DUDE

I FORGOT HOW I WAS GONNA END THIS??!

"Good Lord, child get it right - I did not "show you my ass", I mooned you. There is a very important legal difference." - Chzrm3

[CommunistBrotherJr]

[Izzhov]

Um... why don't you look it up...? Maybe...?
_________________
BRAND NEW FCMidi Forums!