RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
When I give one of my children a choice, and they choose poorly, I simply ask, "What did you learn?"
The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally
- Thread starter jesus_freak
- Start date
edge
Ossai
Freewill negates omnipotence.
Only if that were predetermined. You may just have the illusion of freewill and with your limited intellect, as compared to your god, you would never know or even question that you had free will.
If skeptics have freewill then god isn’t omnipotent.
Why not just program the illusion of emotions into the robot? The robot wouldn’t question it’s emotions.
A robot does what it is programmed to do, including replicate.
Your point?
Ossai
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
It's like pornography, only less interesting.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Also, claiming we have free will and then giving God the credit for your accomplishments.
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
Not sure that follows logically. Couldn't he be omnipotent but disengaged? In other words, he COULD control everything but doesn't.Ossai said:
Omniscience seems to me to argue more strongly against free will - if God knows everything that will happen, then we have only an illusion of free will, because no matter how much we think we are choosing a course of thought or action, it has already been foreseen and actually we had no choice in the matter at all.
And one of my personal pet peeves, giving god the credit for the efforts of others.
This is most apparent in rescue situations; the victim will ignore the efforts and risks of their rescuers to credit god with watching over them, while ignoring the obvious implication that god must have let them get into the situation in the first place.
Better than a small African man with a very large knife. "Hurt quite a lot" wouldn't describe it.
"Excuse me, I don't mean to be a bother, but I'd rather prefer if you left that bit alone. I kind of need it to live."
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,136
Howdy.
Don't worry mate, I know what you mean even if those excuses for sceptics pretend they don't.
As you say, everyone has faith.
If it's not faith in God, it's faith that science works the way it is supposed to. Most of us wouldn't know the front end of a subatomic particle from the ass end of a electron cloud. We have faith that science does. We have faith that peer review will give us reliable results. The material products of scientific research, without which we could not survive these days, reassure us that our faith is not misplaced. But sometimes there are surprises around the corner and a sceptic has to pay attention to that possiblity every step of the way. Dismissive attitudes can come back to bite them in the ass. Unfortunately many here do not seem to realize that fact.
In any case, yes, we all have faith in one form or another.
(Wake up you lot, the message is loud and clear.)
Except that "faith" that Edge was spelling expletives with asterisks is based on prior evidence.
1. It is common practice on this forum.
2. There is no need to self sensor any non-expletive words with asterisks.
I have "faith" based on prior experience that my car will start if I go down to the garage right now and turn the key in the ignition. I cannot guarantee with absolute certainty that this will actually happen yet I am quite confident of the outcome. The majority of "excuses for skeptics" on this forum know enough about logic and science to understand that all knowledge is provisional. Even theories that are based on a great deal of evidence are subject to change in the face of new evidence. That's the beauty of science. Unlike most religion, science is always willing to modify or abandon old ideas if new information becomes available.
The type of faith in question here is quite different though. Far from the faith I have, based on experience and evidence, that my car will start, the type of faith that Edge is defending is based on no supporting evidence at all, and is actually maintained in the face of contradictory evidence. The "faith" of which Edge has accused others of having is not equal to his "faith" that the Bible is infallible.
Science is all about the surprises around the corner. And so far the only dismissive attitudes I've seen are those of people dismissing the evidence that contradicts their superstitious beliefs. If we are dismissive it is because we have not been presented with the slightest evidence that the Bible is to be taken 100% literally other than "it says so in the Bible".
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,136
Yes, a little bit of "faith" based on prior experience and evidence. The religious faith you are defending is based on no supporting evidence and is actually maintained in the face of contradictory evidence. They are not the same thing.
Which brings us back to the fact that you have continually ignored requests to provide evidence of your claims or to explain the glaring contradictions and logical inconsistencies found in the Bible. This latest "argument from faith in asterisks" tangent is just another diversion you are using to avoid the above mentioned issues. So I'll ask only one more question:
How can a perfect, all knowing, all powerful being create something imperfect and then blame the creation for its imperfection?
Even if you continue to ignore this question I will have an answer. That answer will be that you can't offer any logical defense of this contradiction in the nature of your God.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
And there is a very important point, you also can have the knowledge of why the car will start, it has nothing to do with a so-called god works in mysterious ways and or a so-called god’s will.
Paul
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
You just don't know how many times I have said this, only a so-called childless god would act this way, and the worse part is the people believing and justifying their idea of a fire and brimstone so-called god. In the so-called good old days, if your god didn't work for you, you got an other one.
Paul
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,416
You notice how that question always gets ignored. I asked it some pages back and had no reply either.
Last edited:
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
Last edited:
Elizabeth I
Foster Zygote
Ossai
If god disengaged then how can you claim omnipotence?
Omniscience is merely a subset of omnipotence.
Foster Zygote
Incorrect. You have trust that your car will start. Faith is belief without evidence or in opposition to evidence. Trust is based on evidence. This is merely another instance of a believer misusing words by claiming an incorrect meaning. Faith and trust are not directly interchangeable.
Ossai
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
Omnipotence is a matter of capability. Engagement is a matter of choice. God could be omnipotent and make the entire world a paradise (or destroy it in a flash), but CHOOSE not to. As long as he could shape reality to suit his will he would be omnipotent.
The God of the Bible could have created the universe, then sat back in a hands-off attitude (after, admittedly, several centuries of interference.)
I'm not saying that's what happened, just that omnipotence doesn't automatically rule out free will. If God exists and if he is omnipotent, then he could make us do whatever he wanted, but if he were disengaged he wouldn't. That wouldn't change the fact that he could if he were so inclined.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
IF is all one has with a magical being, one can IF it to death and still get nowhere.
Paul