[quote]lixy wrote:
I’ll say that there what you call the past, present and future, all lie in the form of “now” before God the omniscient. Time is relative, remember?[/quote]
So, since God knows the future, He also knows all the choices I’m going to make before I make them. How free then am I to make these choices, really? I can’t “surprise” God by choosing a path He hadn’t previously foreseen.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
forty question ramble. You have never taken a debate class before have you?[/quote]
Yes, I have and got an A, so what? Your condescending tone is unwarranted and frankly, does you an injustice. This isn’t quid pro quo. I can ask as many as I wish. Did you set up a set of rules for this discussion? I don’t remember signing any litigious acceptances before entering this thread.
[quote]But God is infinite, which includes us, as we are a part of His creation. So, God would see the destruction of Himself? Impossible.
You are equating that a creation is the same as a creator. infinite means there is no end to God, that does not mean everything is God. you are are making a false equivocation.[/quote]
Not false. Follow me here. God is the creator. Out of His Will, did everything come into existence. His Will. Him. God. In the beginning, there was naught but God. This is where I may lose you, but I’ll try.
Today, there is a law of physics, in which it states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We cannot prove this does not hold true in our relative existence (in that we relate one thing to another, thereby defining such a thing).
It is beyond me to disprove this Law. I accept it as faith. I presume you’ve been taught this in school. Do you see how I come to the conclusion that the Creator and that which was created as being one in the same?
I assume that the laws of Nature, lorded over and created by God, are not outside the purview of God, again, for the same reason I stated above. One question for you. Do you assume that God does not work within His own framework?
For if He does not, then he is not a part of His Creation. If God’s laws apply to Him, then my assumption is more correct than yours - that He is a part of His creation. That is what you said. My “false” equivocation, as it were.
The problem with God not working within His own construct (laws) is that all of a sudden, He is absent; divorced from, separated from His creation. You see the dilemma. IF God is separate, then He is not HERE - as in, not in existence in this, our reality created BY GOD.
[quote] Therefore, we cannot ever be apart from God.
If I wear a watch that I made, and never take it off that does not mean my watch and I can never seperate.[/quote]
That is ignorant.
BINGO! I think he’s got it!
I had none. Just because I had none, it doens’t mean I held any back so the reader wouldn’t hear of them. Don’t presume what questions I have inside my head. This is exactly what you’re doing. This is how you debate.
[quote]for instance I will create a false dilemma.
because kroby doesn’t acknowledge my claims of logical fallacies
He
A doesn’t know what they are
B He knows what they are but chooses to make bad arguments anyway.
There are more choices, but I am not giving anyone a chance to make them. Since I am making a false dilemma. Sound familiar?[/quote]
I asked, now, for at least the fourth time for some alternative options! Have I not offered my opinion on every one you’ve offered? Why, yes I have. Yet you continue this red herring (a type of logical fallacy in which one purports to prove one’s point by means of irrelevant arguments). False dilemma? How about absolute denial on your part?
[quote]Indeed. And this is a point I really wish to stress. Humans, being far, far from the mind and understanding of God, cannot know anything OF god, besides His existence. Therefore, to presume He would want worshippers, sacrifices and judgement is the prime mistake. We presume.
you are the only one presuming.[/quote]
Then, do I understand correctly that you DO presume to know the mind of God - what He wants? Because that is the opposite of what I was trying to say - that I do not presume to know what God wants; presumption is our error, and religion is the fruit of our presumption.
[quote]You presume there IS a God.
When did I presume there was a God in this thread? You made a post I countered saying you were making logical fallacies, then you asked me questions about God. I stayed on topic. That is what you do in a debate, or discussion.[/quote]
Oh, come on! I was easily able to infer through your words that you believe that there is God.
LOL. “Waah, it’s my ball and I’m going home.” Clever retort.
See above.
Ooooh, teach me to be like you? Please? Your condescension is pathetic. Try it on some other pleb.
[quote]Although you have to ask your self if this is such a great argument why don’t more atheist use this slimmed down version of yours? It sure would save alot of time on debates.
[/quote]
Ah, your presumption that I’m an atheist. Far from the truth. Good try, though. It was any easy guess, so I can’t blame you for it.
[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
I’ll say that there what you call the past, present and future, all lie in the form of “now” before God the omniscient. Time is relative, remember?
So, since God knows the future, He also knows all the choices I’m going to make before I make them. How free then am I to make these choices, really? I can’t “surprise” God by choosing a path He hadn’t previously foreseen.
[/quote]
It’s a paradox. According to Xeno movement isn’t possible, yet movement happens.
[quote]pookie wrote:
So, since God knows the future, He also knows all the choices I’m going to make before I make them. How free then am I to make these choices, really? I can’t “surprise” God by choosing a path He hadn’t previously foreseen. [/quote]
Drop the linear perception of time and you’ll have your answer. Future and present are the same thing for an all-emcompassig being.
I don’t wanna quibble over this any longer. I can’t prove what I’m asserting. I was just trying to show you that there’s no paradox; you just need to think outside the box.
[quote]kroby wrote:
haney1 wrote:
Yes, I have and got an A, so what? Your condescending tone is unwarranted and frankly, does you an injustice. This isn’t quid pro quo. I can ask as many as I wish. Did you set up a set of rules for this discussion? I don’t remember signing any litigious acceptances before entering this thread.
[/quote]
That is ridiculous. I am using simple rules of debate, and discourse. You don’t need to sign anything, as this is a common way to debate. I am pointing out that you are not following those rules.
You assume God is apart of physics. If God is all the things you equate to Him, then he would operate outside of the realm of physics.
I would say He works with in His frame work, but He is not a part of His frame work.
once again you are restricting God to being the creation. Which no one outside of those two religions agrees with.
Ok I am going to try and break this down for you.
Let’s say God has an ant farm.
Let’s say the earth is that ant farm.
God can interact with that ant farm. He can remove ants, He can add dirt.
He can poor water on the ants. He can do just about anything He wants.
God doing that does not mean God is in every ant, and every ant is in God.
see above
I’ve been thinking the same thing about your posts.
That is awesome. Way to prove my point about a false dilemma.
first you say
" I have thought it out quite completely."
Then you say
“My two offered quite completely cover all the bases.”
That is where the false dilemma comes in you have set it up so that there are onlt two options. You claim you have thought it out, but you only have two conclusions. Someone who had thought it out would induldge is with the answers that they thought were unworthy. especially when asked to provide them.
What?
Your accussing me of presuming. Which I’m not. I’m going off of what you said in your earlier post which I provided. You have thought out all the angles, but you only gave us two options. What are the other angels you have thought out?
and each time you ask it still does not deserve an answer because you still committed a false dilemma.
Let me get this straight. I tell you that your argument is a logical fallacy. you defend it, and our whole conversation is only about this. Yet you accusse me of a red herring? How? I wasn’t rebutting your original post other than to tell you that it is an improperly formed argument. Our whole conversation has been about you forming a logical fallacy. The above is right on topic. You asking me for other options though is a red herring. It is not my job to help you present a correct argument. That is your as the presenter.
Once again What?
When have I said I knew the mind of God? When have I assigned attributes to God? You are the only one who is presuming.
That is neither here nor there. It is off topic, and since I am not arguing from that stance totally irrevelant.
You have a hard time with staying on topic don’t you?
Please… your posts are not that clever. take a page from orion or pookie. Their posts are actullay worth the time to repsond.
I think you are beyond help.
[quote]
Ah, your presumption that I’m an atheist. Far from the truth. Good try, though. It was any easy guess, so I can’t blame you for it. [/quote]
Actually no I didn’t. Although I can understand why you thought that.
my statemenent was that if your argument is so good than atheist would be all over it.
Shoot you are losing money by posting it for free. You could write a book and tour with Dawkins.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
It’s a paradox. According to Xeno movement isn’t possible, yet movement happens.[/quote]
Zeno’s paradox is quite explainable if you have the right mathematical tools to do it.
Free will is a lot harder to button down.
In fact, as the science piles up, it appears more and more that free will is nothing more than an illusion.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Drop the linear perception of time and you’ll have your answer. Future and present are the same thing for an all-emcompassig being.[/quote]
That changes nothing. God still knows all before I do. Even though time is linear from my point of view, what I’ll do in 10 or 20 years is already know to God. My freedom of will is illusory at best.
[quote]kroby wrote:
Ooooh, teach me to be like you? Please? Your condescension is pathetic. Try it on some other pleb.
[/quote]
Nice by the way. You accuse me of being condescending, and in the same post you do the thing you accuse me of.
You are a funny person Kroby…
Kroby since you have requested several times I will now look at your “false dilemma” of an argument.
[quote]kroby wrote:
IF God wanted us to worship him in a special way, He would come down and force us to do it His way, without our ability to choose.
[/quote]
That would remove free will something almost all religions believe. The Christian perspective is that God care significantly about free will. I would say as much if not more than being worshiped. I can’t argue from other religions as I am not as well versed in their perspective of the subject.
Kind of hard to when He cares more about free will.
[quote]
Either:
A) He must not care
B) He must not exist
Interesting predicament.[/quote]
How about this
If God cares more for free will
Then God’s “desire” to be worshiped is less then His “desire” for free will.
There for God would not come down and force us to worship him or die.
so my answer is as follows.
A.) God cares about worship
B.) God cares more about Free will
A < B
Now to prove my logic wrong you would have to prove that Free Will is not as important to God.
Kind of hard to since most religions put such in emphasis on us having the ability to choose.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
once again you are restricting God to being the creation. Which no one outside of those two religions agrees with.
[/quote]
My religion agrees with this. So, you’re saying that my beliefs are wrong, because all other religions don’t believe this?
[quote]haney1 wrote:
God doing that does not mean God is in every ant, and every ant is in God.
[/quote]
To this I agree as my faith in truth. Just because you don’t believe this, doesn’t make it so.
How hard is this to understand?
[quote]haney1 wrote:
I had none. Just because I had none, it doens’t mean I held any back so the reader wouldn’t hear of them.
That is awesome. Way to prove my point about a false dilemma.
first you say
" I have thought it out quite completely."
Then you say
“My two offered quite completely cover all the bases.”
That is where the false dilemma comes in you have set it up so that there are onlt two options. You claim you have thought it out, but you only have two conclusions. Someone who had thought it out would induldge is with the answers that they thought were unworthy. especially when asked to provide them.[/quote]
Back and forth with this! I asked for other options. You gave one or two, and I discussed them. How is it that we’re still on this subject? Ah, because it’s a red herring. Bravo.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
What?
Your accussing me of presuming. Which I’m not. I’m going off of what you said in your earlier post which I provided. You have thought out all the angles, but you only gave us two options. What are the other angels you have thought out?[/quote]
You stated that I had more than two options. I do not. Hence, your presumption as to what I’m thinking.
[quote]kroby wrote:
This strengthens my argument on another thread that humans ruin religion.
IF God wanted us to worship him in a special way, He would come down and force us to do it His way, without our ability to choose. Like breathing. We have to breathe, or we die.
Hm. No God come down from the heavens yet and make us worship or die. Either:
A) He must not care
B) He must not exist
Interesting predicament.[/quote]
John S. immediately retorted other options, which I discussed at length. How does this not satisfy a middle of the ground option? Your false dilemma was terminated before you even posted.
[quote]kroby wrote:
haney1 wrote:
God doing that does not mean God is in every ant, and every ant is in God.
To this I agree as my faith in truth. Just because you don’t believe this, doesn’t make it so.
How hard is this to understand?[/quote]
Because your faith isn’t something I/others agree with. How hard is that to understand?
Should have read
"God doing that does not mean God is in every ant, and every ant isn’t in God.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
How about this
If God cares more for free will
Then God’s “desire” to be worshiped is less then His “desire” for free will.
There for God would not come down and force us to worship him or die.
so my answer is as follows.
A.) God cares about worship
B.) God cares more about Free will
A < B
Now to prove my logic wrong you would have to prove that Free Will is not as important to God.
Kind of hard to since most religions put such in emphasis on us having the ability to choose.
[/quote]
No, to prove you wrong, all I need from you is to explain to me why God cares. You cannot, for you do not know God or His machinations. See, wasn’t that simple?
[quote]kroby wrote:
haney1 wrote:
I had none. Just because I had none, it doens’t mean I held any back so the reader wouldn’t hear of them.
That is awesome. Way to prove my point about a false dilemma.
first you say
" I have thought it out quite completely."
Then you say
“My two offered quite completely cover all the bases.”
That is where the false dilemma comes in you have set it up so that there are onlt two options. You claim you have thought it out, but you only have two conclusions. Someone who had thought it out would induldge is with the answers that they thought were unworthy. especially when asked to provide them.
Back and forth with this! I asked for other options. You gave one or two, and I discussed them. How is it that we’re still on this subject? Ah, because it’s a red herring. Bravo.
[/quote]
Because I told you I wasn’t really addressing your argument with any real thought.
which now I have in a resent post.
The problem with your issue is
What if we prove God cares, but chooses not to force His will on us for some unknown reason?
That instantly makes option B true because you set it up as an either.
That is the middle ground God could care, but He might care about some else more. You left that option out.
[quote]kroby wrote:
haney1 wrote:
What?
Your accussing me of presuming. Which I’m not. I’m going off of what you said in your earlier post which I provided. You have thought out all the angles, but you only gave us two options. What are the other angels you have thought out?
You stated that I had more than two options. I do not. Hence, your presumption as to what I’m thinking.[/quote]
Yes you do.
The option that God prefers something more than option A.
[quote]kroby wrote:
kroby wrote:
This strengthens my argument on another thread that humans ruin religion.
IF God wanted us to worship him in a special way, He would come down and force us to do it His way, without our ability to choose. Like breathing. We have to breathe, or we die.
Hm. No God come down from the heavens yet and make us worship or die. Either:
A) He must not care
B) He must not exist
Interesting predicament.
John S. immediately retorted other options, which I discussed at length. How does this not satisfy a middle of the ground option? Your false dilemma was terminated before you even posted.[/quote]
actually no.
You have to first satisfy that A even belongs in the equation.
You have to determine that God is concerned with worship more than anything else.
You also set it up that God is forced to reconcile things the way you would.
God has to handle things the way kroby would for your set up to be right.
Here are two problems for you.
If God is in everything and God can’t die then nothing else can die, or else God is dying.
Since God has not stopped us from dying
then either
1). God is dying and incapable of sustaining life.
2). God isn’t in everything.
If hinduism is correct then God would come down and tell us they are correct. Forcing us to be hindu’s
hm. God hasn’t come down and forced us to be hindu’s.
either
1.) hindu’s are wrong
2.) God doesn’t exist.
[quote]kroby wrote:
haney1 wrote:
once again you are restricting God to being the creation. Which no one outside of those two religions agrees with.
My religion agrees with this. So, you’re saying that my beliefs are wrong, because all other religions don’t believe this?[/quote]
absolutly not, I would never say anyones religion is wrong. I will say I don’t agree with yours though.
For your logic to be right though you are forced to say all other religions are wrong.
So in essence you are saying mine as well as many others are false.
Which basically excludes any middle ground that does exist. Which is why your argument is a false dilemma.
I figured out long ago you aligned your believes with hindu or buddhist type stuff(that is not to say you are one).
Your premise is that all things are God, and God doesn’t really care if we worship Him
To force believers of other religions to that same conclusion you basically say that if God wanted it done your way He would makes us do it your way.
Since God doesn’t do it your way then either he must
A. not care.
B. not exist.
You discount other belief systems with one fail swoop. You forget though that you have not proved God is everything.
You also have to disprove that those belief systems put greater emphasis on Worship than they do other interests of God.