Nitramosma Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 if the christian god is real, we do not have free will. How many times will I have to disprove this very statement! Imagine this situation I've taken a person prisoner and starved them for 6 days. After those 6 days I put them in a room with a meal sitting on a table. I know that if I return in at most 2-3 hours that meal will have been eaten. I knew this, but I did not force him to eat that meal. It was his choice (free will) even though I knew what he would do (and example of prior knowledge which would be called omnipotence if I knew everything). Therefore my knowledge of his actions didn't mean that he didn't choose to make those actions. MEANING omnipotence does NOT negate free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaperClipsYaaaar Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 if the christian god is real, we do not have free will. How many times will I have to disprove this very statement! Imagine this situation I've taken a person prisoner and starved them for 6 days. After those 6 days I put them in a room with a meal sitting on a table. I know that if I return in at most 2-3 hours that meal will have been eaten. I knew this, but I did not force him to eat that meal. It was his choice (free will) even though I knew what he would do (and example of prior knowledge which would be called omnipotence if I knew everything). Therefore my knowledge of his actions didn't mean that he didn't choose to make those actions. MEANING omnipotence does NOT negate free will. I'm talking about predestination, not omnipotence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitramosma Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 if the christian god is real, we do not have free will. How many times will I have to disprove this very statement! Imagine this situation I've taken a person prisoner and starved them for 6 days. After those 6 days I put them in a room with a meal sitting on a table. I know that if I return in at most 2-3 hours that meal will have been eaten. I knew this, but I did not force him to eat that meal. It was his choice (free will) even though I knew what he would do (and example of prior knowledge which would be called omnipotence if I knew everything). Therefore my knowledge of his actions didn't mean that he didn't choose to make those actions. MEANING omnipotence does NOT negate free will. I'm talking about predestination, not omnipotence. Well thats even easier to disprove....Christians don't believe in predestination. EDIT: Well...some do, like John Calvin (the founder of Calvinism) did, but that is hardly a reflection on the general perception of a Christian God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 That was simply by problem, because I would think that meaning links back to emotion, and an ability to move individuals. The universal is empty and uninspiring and in that sense an individual expression, for me at least, would seem to hold more meaning than something that is universal. By saying that we can not prove God in a meaningful way is wrong, because for a person who truly believes in God they have proven their belief individually for themselves in the most meaningful way possible. The fact that they can not articulate that belief, and can not rely on generality to express it only shows how individual and meaningful that is. On a universal level it may be meaningless, but the universal seems to be meaningless anyway, even more so in this instance since we have agreed that we can not rationally point out an existence or belief in God. Then I suppose that's simply a difference of opinion. I'm not sure if this is warri0r's opinion; I am merely speaking for myself when I say that I believe the universal to be far more valuable than the individual when it comes to "proving" something. I think you are misenterpreting what i mean, if a person came to me and said they had an inner conviction that God existed and were completley taken by it then it still would be meaningless to me. However that conviction means more to him then anything that he could have articulated to me, and therefore the universal. His inner conviction for himself trancends any generality, whether it in itself is right or wrong. There's also a difference of opinion in that I find the universal to be inspiring, meaningful, and engaging, while you find the individual to harbor those qualities :P . The universal is not engaging though in this aspect. Take ethics for example. The purpose of ethics is the individual, to provide a sense of universiality to the rights and wrongs of life. Yet in doing so it entangles everyone into one thing, theres no engagement i can have with it. It looses all sense of uniqueness. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaperClipsYaaaar Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 if the christian god is real, we do not have free will. How many times will I have to disprove this very statement! Imagine this situation I've taken a person prisoner and starved them for 6 days. After those 6 days I put them in a room with a meal sitting on a table. I know that if I return in at most 2-3 hours that meal will have been eaten. I knew this, but I did not force him to eat that meal. It was his choice (free will) even though I knew what he would do (and example of prior knowledge which would be called omnipotence if I knew everything). Therefore my knowledge of his actions didn't mean that he didn't choose to make those actions. MEANING omnipotence does NOT negate free will. I'm talking about predestination, not omnipotence. Well thats even easier to disprove....Christians don't believe in predestination. EDIT: Well...some do, like John Calvin (the founder of Calvinism) did, but that is hardly a reflection on the general perception of a Christian God Predestination is in the bible. You're saying it's ok to pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to believe in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plectrum Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 I don't understand the point of this argument. If people believe in God or not does not mean He does or does not exist. Christians who say they believe in the LORD God aren't saying they believe in something that they conjured in their minds. When a Christian says he believes in God it means they believe in a very real person. Christianity isn't Platonism. I don't understand the point of atheism. And I quote: "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that is has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never known it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning." - C.S. Lewis from is book Mere Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 When a Christian says he believes in God it means they believe in a very real person. Christianity isn't Platonism. Believing in Jesus isn't a matter of 'belief'. Any rational person who has studied history or knows how to search for reliable sources, will know Jesus as a person, just like Muhammad, Gautama Buddha, etc. existed. What is purely a matter of faith is whether any of those persons had 'divine' abilities or origins. If you believe so, you have all the rights to... Just remember, it's a personal belief instead of a fact. People believe in all sorts of different things, heck, a lot of people still believe in flat Earth or UFO's having visited our planet, or that eating a pig's meat turns your face into that of a leper... Though, if a supernatural event was recorded with reliable accuracy and original, unedited footage, I'd change my beliefs in an instant. For example, the 12 million mormons of the world believe a guy was in the USA just 200 years ago, and recieved golden plates from an angel who told him how to live. If I saw actual proof of that, I would become a mormon as well. They had primitive cameras already 200 years ago. But all I have is the guy's "word" some angel gave him items and disappeared. Not very convincing, but to 12 million people in the world, it seems like enough "evidence" to base your life values on. Apparently people can believe anything that is presented to them with a straight face and a man who looks important (like mormon recruiters and missionaries with their $5000 Armani suits) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomai Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 When a Christian says he believes in God it means they believe in a very real person. The Christian God is very real only in the eyes of a Christian. Also, I'm surprised that you label God as a "person" -- a mere human. I don't understand the point of atheism. I have a hard time grasping the concept of monotheism. I have an even harder time understanding Christianity. :) And I quote: "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that is has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never known it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning." - C.S. Lewis from is book Mere Christianity. That's a nice quote, aside from the fact that atheism doesn't suggest the universe is pointless. :) Some people make such deductions, but so could anyone (theist or not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 That was simply by problem, because I would think that meaning links back to emotion, and an ability to move individuals. The universal is empty and uninspiring and in that sense an individual expression, for me at least, would seem to hold more meaning than something that is universal. By saying that we can not prove God in a meaningful way is wrong, because for a person who truly believes in God they have proven their belief individually for themselves in the most meaningful way possible. The fact that they can not articulate that belief, and can not rely on generality to express it only shows how individual and meaningful that is. On a universal level it may be meaningless, but the universal seems to be meaningless anyway, even more so in this instance since we have agreed that we can not rationally point out an existence or belief in God. Then I suppose that's simply a difference of opinion. I'm not sure if this is warri0r's opinion; I am merely speaking for myself when I say that I believe the universal to be far more valuable than the individual when it comes to "proving" something. There's also a difference of opinion in that I find the universal to be inspiring, meaningful, and engaging, while you find the individual to harbor those qualities :P . I was basically going to mirror what you say here. I personally see more meaning in the universally known than the individually believed. Difference of opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 The big bang is just a theory, and it may very well prove to be incorrect. Already new theories are coming out that go against the big bang, such as the Cyclic model. I'm pretty sure cyclic models don't go against the big bang, it's good science as far as I'm aware - they do incorporate it and just say it is but one 'beginning' of an arbitrary number before it. I don't understand the point of this argument. If people believe in God or not does not mean He does or does not exist. Christians who say they believe in the LORD God aren't saying they believe in something that they conjured in their minds. When a Christian says he believes in God it means they believe in a very real person. Christianity isn't Platonism. I don't understand the point of atheism. And I quote: "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that is has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never known it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning." - C.S. Lewis from is book Mere Christianity. There is no 'point' to atheism. What's the point of the word 'asymmetrical'? It's to tell you that something is not symmetrical. What's the point of being an 'atheist'? On a base level, it's to tell you I'm not a theist. It says nothing of what else we might assign meaning to, as it seems Lewis would have you believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomai Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 The big bang is just a theory, and it may very well prove to be incorrect. Already new theories are coming out that go against the big bang, such as the Cyclic model. I'm pretty sure cyclic models don't go against the big bang, it's good science as far as I'm aware - they do incorporate it and just say it is but one 'beginning' of an arbitrary number before it. Sorry, poor choice of words. :) I'll edit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 That was simply by problem, because I would think that meaning links back to emotion, and an ability to move individuals. The universal is empty and uninspiring and in that sense an individual expression, for me at least, would seem to hold more meaning than something that is universal. By saying that we can not prove God in a meaningful way is wrong, because for a person who truly believes in God they have proven their belief individually for themselves in the most meaningful way possible. The fact that they can not articulate that belief, and can not rely on generality to express it only shows how individual and meaningful that is. On a universal level it may be meaningless, but the universal seems to be meaningless anyway, even more so in this instance since we have agreed that we can not rationally point out an existence or belief in God. Then I suppose that's simply a difference of opinion. I'm not sure if this is warri0r's opinion; I am merely speaking for myself when I say that I believe the universal to be far more valuable than the individual when it comes to "proving" something. There's also a difference of opinion in that I find the universal to be inspiring, meaningful, and engaging, while you find the individual to harbor those qualities :P . I was basically going to mirror what you say here. I personally see more meaning in the universally known than the individually believed. Difference of opinion. Let me use an example, I understand you have a love of music correct? Now what has more meaning to you, the cords and the technical aspect of music that anyone can appreciate, or your individual interpretation of music, the lyrics and the way it affects you? I see value in the technical aspects of music, but I see no real meaningful engagement I can have with it. On the other hand my interpretation of music can move me and it affects me, it is more meaningful to me. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IGoddessI Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 They're talking about the Alpha and Omega, not your sisters jewellery box :P The only people who tell you that you can't do something are those who have already given up on their own dreams so feel the need to discourage yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 That was simply by problem, because I would think that meaning links back to emotion, and an ability to move individuals. The universal is empty and uninspiring and in that sense an individual expression, for me at least, would seem to hold more meaning than something that is universal. By saying that we can not prove God in a meaningful way is wrong, because for a person who truly believes in God they have proven their belief individually for themselves in the most meaningful way possible. The fact that they can not articulate that belief, and can not rely on generality to express it only shows how individual and meaningful that is. On a universal level it may be meaningless, but the universal seems to be meaningless anyway, even more so in this instance since we have agreed that we can not rationally point out an existence or belief in God. Then I suppose that's simply a difference of opinion. I'm not sure if this is warri0r's opinion; I am merely speaking for myself when I say that I believe the universal to be far more valuable than the individual when it comes to "proving" something. There's also a difference of opinion in that I find the universal to be inspiring, meaningful, and engaging, while you find the individual to harbor those qualities :P . I was basically going to mirror what you say here. I personally see more meaning in the universally known than the individually believed. Difference of opinion. Let me use an example, I understand you have a love of music correct? Now what has more meaning to you, the cords and the technical aspect of music that anyone can appreciate, or your individual interpretation of music, the lyrics and the way it affects you? I see value in the technical aspects of music, but I see no real meaningful engagement I can have with it. On the other hand my interpretation of music can move me and it affects me, it is more meaningful to me. I understand 'meaningful' is subjective and therefore faith can be more meaningful than some sort of scientific proof for some people. If you'd like me to amend my original comment I'll make it "you can't meaningfully prove god with science." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 That does not answer the question of whether you find the technical aspect of music more or less meaningful than your interpretation of it, but i just wanted to point out that I think, at least, there is a distinct engagement between emotion, individuality and meaning. Which seems to be absracted from universality No, you do not have to ammend your first comment. I am not Locke :P With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 That does not answer the question of whether you find the technical aspect of music more or less meaningful than your interpretation of it, but i just wanted to point out that I think, at least, there is a distinct engagement between emotion, individuality and meaning. Which seems to be absracted from universality Yes, but in this case it's not scientific meaning, just other kinds of meaning. Sure, I'll admit that God is more useful when it comes to finding a meaning [to life], but scientifically, I see little meaning in its existence. No, you do not have to ammend your first comment. I am not Locke :P Where'd he go? He was annoying as hell, but I miss those topics :lol: . [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 That does not answer the question of whether you find the technical aspect of music more or less meaningful than your interpretation of it, but i just wanted to point out that I think, at least, there is a distinct engagement between emotion, individuality and meaning. Which seems to be absracted from universality No, you do not have to ammend your first comment. I am not Locke :P The example is kind of irrelevant if I understand and agree with you, which I do. You'd of course not want to give people the impression that just because they can assign whatever meaning they want on something and that they see great meaning in their faith above some sort of universal proof dosen't make what that faith is focused on true (I know you don't think this). Need I bring up how kids see great meaning in their childhood imaginary friends? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 That's a nice quote, aside from the fact that atheism doesn't suggest the universe is pointless. It certainly implies it. What point does atheism give to the universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 That's a nice quote, aside from the fact that atheism doesn't suggest the universe is pointless. It certainly implies it. What point does atheism give to the universe? Atheism is not something. It's a lack of something - god belief, and that's the extent of what atheism entails on a base level. Atheism assigns no point to anything nor does it say anything is pointless (so what you quoted is accurate), however atheists can assign their own meaning to things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 That's a nice quote, aside from the fact that atheism doesn't suggest the universe is pointless. It certainly implies it. What point does atheism give to the universe? Atheism is not something. It's a lack of something - god belief, and that's the extent of what atheism entails on a base level. Atheism assigns no point to anything nor does it say anything is pointless (so what you quoted is accurate), however atheists can assign their own meaning to things. Exactly, atheism is a lack of meaning. Things cannot assign meaning to things that are more universal/authoritative than them. For instance, a student cannot assign his/her own meaning to a course because the student is within the course - the meaning must be given by someone outside of the course (the university, or professor). Just like an atheist cannot assign their meaning to the universe because the meaning/point of the universe cannot be decided by someone within the universe. It must be assigned by someone outside of the universe, and atheism all but destroys the possibility of there being something outside the universe, and thus destroys any possible meaning for the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Exactly, atheism is a lack of meaning. Things cannot assign meaning to things that are more universal/authoritative than them. For instance, a student cannot assign his/her own meaning to a course because the student is within the course - the meaning must be given by someone outside of the course (the university, or professor). Just like an atheist cannot assign their meaning to the universe because the meaning/point of the universe cannot be decided by someone within the universe. It must be assigned by someone outside of the universe, and atheism all but destroys the possibility of there being something outside the universe, and thus destroys any possible meaning for the universe. [*cough, multiverse] :mrgreen: [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unoalexi Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 however atheists can assign their own meaning to things. But if all the things in this life will most certainly fade away soon after your death, then what's the point of living? All the work you did in this life will only last for a very short amount of time... Why even bother in the first place? Here be dragons ^ Dragon of the Day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 however atheists can assign their own meaning to things. But if all the things in this life will most certainly fade away soon after your death, then what's the point of living? All the work you did in this life will only last for a very short amount of time... Why even bother in the first place? Finding your meaning to life is your job, not someone elses. Others can help, but ultimately it is yours to find. So stop being cynical about it and do something :P . [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 That's a nice quote, aside from the fact that atheism doesn't suggest the universe is pointless. It certainly implies it. What point does atheism give to the universe? Atheism is not something. It's a lack of something - god belief, and that's the extent of what atheism entails on a base level. Atheism assigns no point to anything nor does it say anything is pointless (so what you quoted is accurate), however atheists can assign their own meaning to things. Exactly, atheism is a lack of meaning. Things cannot assign meaning to things that are more universal/authoritative than them. For instance, a student cannot assign his/her own meaning to a course because the student is within the course - the meaning must be given by someone outside of the course (the university, or professor). Just like an atheist cannot assign their meaning to the universe because the meaning/point of the universe cannot be decided by someone within the universe. It must be assigned by someone outside of the universe, and atheism all but destroys the possibility of there being something outside the universe, and thus destroys any possible meaning for the universe. Lacking belief in something dosen't destroy meaning or the possibility of it. It's going to be there or it's going to be possible irrespective of who believes in it or not. Either way atheism dosen't assign any meaning to the universe so I don't really disagree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 however atheists can assign their own meaning to things. But if all the things in this life will most certainly fade away soon after your death, then what's the point of living? All the work you did in this life will only last for a very short amount of time... Why even bother in the first place? If this is the only chance we get then all the more reason to give your life a meaning and make something of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now