Total Posts:89|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do Jesus and Yahweh have free will?

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:32:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is a simple yes or no questions for Christians, also is there free will in heaven?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
hotdog
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:42:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:32:33 AM, izbo10 wrote:
This is a simple yes or no questions for Christians, also is there free will in heaven?

yes jesus and yaweh both. free will is an inseparable quality of living conscious beings.

heaven is all conscious, in heaven there is no trace of the phenomenon known as matter. so yes there is free will in heaven too.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:42:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:32:33 AM, izbo10 wrote:
This is a simple yes or no questions for Christians, also is there free will in heaven?

Jesus while he was alive had free will. As of now, see final response.

God does not have free will like we have free will. Rather he is "self determined".

For the last question. I am not shore. I don't have a source one way or another.

BTW, why do you ask?
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:44:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:42:05 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:32:33 AM, izbo10 wrote:
This is a simple yes or no questions for Christians, also is there free will in heaven?


Jesus while he was alive had free will. As of now, see final response.

God does not have free will like we have free will. Rather he is "self determined".

For the last question. I am not shore. I don't have a source one way or another.

BTW, why do you ask?

As far as angles are concerned I think they have free will but much less than humans.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:47:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Don't feed the troll, he is not interested in an actual conversation on this subject.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:55:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:47:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Don't feed the troll, he is not interested in an actual conversation on this subject.

says, mr, I want to talk about the atheists worldview, to red herring a discussion about the christian worldview. stop trolling and add some questions or topics of value.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:56:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:55:28 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:47:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Don't feed the troll, he is not interested in an actual conversation on this subject.

says, mr, I want to talk about the atheists worldview, to red herring a discussion about the christian worldview. stop trolling and add some questions or topics of value.

Can you try again in English please?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:57:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:56:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:55:28 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:47:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Don't feed the troll, he is not interested in an actual conversation on this subject.

says, mr, I want to talk about the atheists worldview, to red herring a discussion about the christian worldview. stop trolling and add some questions or topics of value.

Can you try again in English please?

In my post about god and child rape, all you wanted to do was talk about morality in the atheist worldview, completely and utterly irrelevant to the christian worldview, which is what the conversation was about.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 7:58:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:57:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:56:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:55:28 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:47:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Don't feed the troll, he is not interested in an actual conversation on this subject.

says, mr, I want to talk about the atheists worldview, to red herring a discussion about the christian worldview. stop trolling and add some questions or topics of value.

Can you try again in English please?

In my post about god and child rape, all you wanted to do was talk about morality in the atheist worldview, completely and utterly irrelevant to the christian worldview, which is what the conversation was about.

a clear and utter disgraceful red herring tactic from a guy who claims to know logic.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:01:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:57:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:56:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:55:28 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:47:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Don't feed the troll, he is not interested in an actual conversation on this subject.

says, mr, I want to talk about the atheists worldview, to red herring a discussion about the christian worldview. stop trolling and add some questions or topics of value.

Can you try again in English please?

In my post about god and child rape, all you wanted to do was talk about morality in the atheist worldview, completely and utterly irrelevant to the christian worldview, which is what the conversation was about.

At no point did I want to talk about morality in the atheist worldview. I wanted you to define evil, which is a necessary pre-condition to any discussion of the problem of evil. You however merely wanted to troll. You seem to find English very difficult, perhaps you should find a forum that uses your native language?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:03:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:01:27 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:57:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:56:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:55:28 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:47:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Don't feed the troll, he is not interested in an actual conversation on this subject.

says, mr, I want to talk about the atheists worldview, to red herring a discussion about the christian worldview. stop trolling and add some questions or topics of value.

Can you try again in English please?

In my post about god and child rape, all you wanted to do was talk about morality in the atheist worldview, completely and utterly irrelevant to the christian worldview, which is what the conversation was about.

At no point did I want to talk about morality in the atheist worldview. I wanted you to define evil, which is a necessary pre-condition to any discussion of the problem of evil. You however merely wanted to troll. You seem to find English very difficult, perhaps you should find a forum that uses your native language?

I do not need to define evil, all that is necessary is for the christian to know that what i am presenting is wrong and evil, if they know that, a pretty basic assumption that can be made, the majority of the world agrees child rape is wrong, sorry if your too stupid to know that. I was not getting bogged down in your nonsense. Sorry don't like that get the fucks out.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:04:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Now back to this topic as cerebral is completely incapable of addressing actual topics and continues to troll.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:09:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 7:42:05 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:32:33 AM, izbo10 wrote:
This is a simple yes or no questions for Christians, also is there free will in heaven?


Jesus while he was alive had free will. As of now, see final response.

God does not have free will like we have free will. Rather he is "self determined".

For the last question. I am not shore. I don't have a source one way or another.

BTW, why do you ask?

well free will is usually the rebuttal to the problem of evil, in order for that to be a reasonable response in the christian worldview evil must be a necessary condition of having free will. But we are finding here that is not so much the case.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:10:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:03:13 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:01:27 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:57:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:56:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:55:28 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:47:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Don't feed the troll, he is not interested in an actual conversation on this subject.

says, mr, I want to talk about the atheists worldview, to red herring a discussion about the christian worldview. stop trolling and add some questions or topics of value.

Can you try again in English please?

In my post about god and child rape, all you wanted to do was talk about morality in the atheist worldview, completely and utterly irrelevant to the christian worldview, which is what the conversation was about.

At no point did I want to talk about morality in the atheist worldview. I wanted you to define evil, which is a necessary pre-condition to any discussion of the problem of evil. You however merely wanted to troll. You seem to find English very difficult, perhaps you should find a forum that uses your native language?

I do not need to define evil,

Yes you did, otherwise the Problem of Evil becomes the Problem of Wiffle-wobble. How does the existence of wiffle-wobble disprove God?

Have you really taken any logic classes? I mean seriously? Did you sleep through them?

all that is necessary is for the christian to know that what i am presenting is wrong and evil, if they know that, a pretty basic assumption that can be made, the majority of the world agrees child rape is wrong, sorry if your too stupid to know that. I was not getting bogged down in your nonsense. Sorry don't like that get the fucks out.

Philosophers tend to avoid 'basic assumptions'. Things need to be defined, if you were an educated person you would realise this.

You are also completely misunderstanding or simply mispresenting the Problem of Evil.

The Problem of Evil is not... "most of us find xyz to be evil, therefore God must do as well, but he allows it to happen... wtf".

The problem of evil concerns an internal contradiction in the nature of God... it is really very basic logic, and as it is your singular objection to God you should probably learn it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:11:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:04:04 AM, izbo10 wrote:
Now back to this topic as cerebral is completely incapable of addressing actual topics and continues to troll.

It is called counter-trolling.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:13:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:10:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:03:13 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:01:27 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:57:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:56:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:55:28 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:47:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Don't feed the troll, he is not interested in an actual conversation on this subject.

says, mr, I want to talk about the atheists worldview, to red herring a discussion about the christian worldview. stop trolling and add some questions or topics of value.

Can you try again in English please?

In my post about god and child rape, all you wanted to do was talk about morality in the atheist worldview, completely and utterly irrelevant to the christian worldview, which is what the conversation was about.

At no point did I want to talk about morality in the atheist worldview. I wanted you to define evil, which is a necessary pre-condition to any discussion of the problem of evil. You however merely wanted to troll. You seem to find English very difficult, perhaps you should find a forum that uses your native language?

I do not need to define evil,

Yes you did, otherwise the Problem of Evil becomes the Problem of Wiffle-wobble. How does the existence of wiffle-wobble disprove God?

Have you really taken any logic classes? I mean seriously? Did you sleep through them?

all that is necessary is for the christian to know that what i am presenting is wrong and evil, if they know that, a pretty basic assumption that can be made, the majority of the world agrees child rape is wrong, sorry if your too stupid to know that. I was not getting bogged down in your nonsense. Sorry don't like that get the fucks out.

Philosophers tend to avoid 'basic assumptions'. Things need to be defined, if you were an educated person you would realise this.

You are also completely misunderstanding or simply mispresenting the Problem of Evil.

The Problem of Evil is not... "most of us find xyz to be evil, therefore God must do as well, but he allows it to happen... wtf".

The problem of evil concerns an internal contradiction in the nature of God... it is really very basic logic, and as it is your singular objection to God you should probably learn it.

Though I think for the most part he is wrong, I would go out on a limb and say Plantiga is far more educated in philosophy then you and here is a gem of a quote from him : 'typically draws its premisses from the stock of propositions accepted by nearly every sane man, or perhaps nearly every rational man" about natural theology, a theology that tries to use logic and reason.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:15:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:13:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:10:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:03:13 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:01:27 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:57:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:56:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:55:28 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:47:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Don't feed the troll, he is not interested in an actual conversation on this subject.

says, mr, I want to talk about the atheists worldview, to red herring a discussion about the christian worldview. stop trolling and add some questions or topics of value.

Can you try again in English please?

In my post about god and child rape, all you wanted to do was talk about morality in the atheist worldview, completely and utterly irrelevant to the christian worldview, which is what the conversation was about.

At no point did I want to talk about morality in the atheist worldview. I wanted you to define evil, which is a necessary pre-condition to any discussion of the problem of evil. You however merely wanted to troll. You seem to find English very difficult, perhaps you should find a forum that uses your native language?

I do not need to define evil,

Yes you did, otherwise the Problem of Evil becomes the Problem of Wiffle-wobble. How does the existence of wiffle-wobble disprove God?

Have you really taken any logic classes? I mean seriously? Did you sleep through them?

all that is necessary is for the christian to know that what i am presenting is wrong and evil, if they know that, a pretty basic assumption that can be made, the majority of the world agrees child rape is wrong, sorry if your too stupid to know that. I was not getting bogged down in your nonsense. Sorry don't like that get the fucks out.

Philosophers tend to avoid 'basic assumptions'. Things need to be defined, if you were an educated person you would realise this.

You are also completely misunderstanding or simply mispresenting the Problem of Evil.

The Problem of Evil is not... "most of us find xyz to be evil, therefore God must do as well, but he allows it to happen... wtf".

The problem of evil concerns an internal contradiction in the nature of God... it is really very basic logic, and as it is your singular objection to God you should probably learn it.

Though I think for the most part he is wrong, I would go out on a limb and say Plantiga is far more educated in philosophy then you and here is a gem of a quote from him : 'typically draws its premisses from the stock of propositions accepted by nearly every sane man, or perhaps nearly every rational man" about natural theology, a theology that tries to use logic and reason.

If philosophers were as stupid as you, they would get stuck in a game of natural regress and never get anywhere. Anytime you start with a premise you have to assume your audience agrees. If they disagree they can dismiss the premise. To simply ask a philosopher to prove a premise you have already admitted to agreeing to is a serious fuckin waste of their time and laughable.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:20:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:13:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:10:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:03:13 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:01:27 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:57:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:56:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:55:28 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:47:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Don't feed the troll, he is not interested in an actual conversation on this subject.

says, mr, I want to talk about the atheists worldview, to red herring a discussion about the christian worldview. stop trolling and add some questions or topics of value.

Can you try again in English please?

In my post about god and child rape, all you wanted to do was talk about morality in the atheist worldview, completely and utterly irrelevant to the christian worldview, which is what the conversation was about.

At no point did I want to talk about morality in the atheist worldview. I wanted you to define evil, which is a necessary pre-condition to any discussion of the problem of evil. You however merely wanted to troll. You seem to find English very difficult, perhaps you should find a forum that uses your native language?

I do not need to define evil,

Yes you did, otherwise the Problem of Evil becomes the Problem of Wiffle-wobble. How does the existence of wiffle-wobble disprove God?

Have you really taken any logic classes? I mean seriously? Did you sleep through them?

all that is necessary is for the christian to know that what i am presenting is wrong and evil, if they know that, a pretty basic assumption that can be made, the majority of the world agrees child rape is wrong, sorry if your too stupid to know that. I was not getting bogged down in your nonsense. Sorry don't like that get the fucks out.

Philosophers tend to avoid 'basic assumptions'. Things need to be defined, if you were an educated person you would realise this.

You are also completely misunderstanding or simply mispresenting the Problem of Evil.

The Problem of Evil is not... "most of us find xyz to be evil, therefore God must do as well, but he allows it to happen... wtf".

The problem of evil concerns an internal contradiction in the nature of God... it is really very basic logic, and as it is your singular objection to God you should probably learn it.

Though I think for the most part he is wrong, I would go out on a limb and say Plantiga is far more educated in philosophy then you and here is a gem of a quote from him : 'typically draws its premisses from the stock of propositions accepted by nearly every sane man, or perhaps nearly every rational man" about natural theology, a theology that tries to use logic and reason.

1: You are not Plantinga, you have only heard that name since joining here.
2: That is not a quote from Plantinga, he was not illiterate.
3: That is not really relevant to this lesson.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:22:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:20:01 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:13:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:10:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:03:13 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:01:27 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:57:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:56:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:55:28 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:47:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Don't feed the troll, he is not interested in an actual conversation on this subject.

says, mr, I want to talk about the atheists worldview, to red herring a discussion about the christian worldview. stop trolling and add some questions or topics of value.

Can you try again in English please?

In my post about god and child rape, all you wanted to do was talk about morality in the atheist worldview, completely and utterly irrelevant to the christian worldview, which is what the conversation was about.

At no point did I want to talk about morality in the atheist worldview. I wanted you to define evil, which is a necessary pre-condition to any discussion of the problem of evil. You however merely wanted to troll. You seem to find English very difficult, perhaps you should find a forum that uses your native language?

I do not need to define evil,

Yes you did, otherwise the Problem of Evil becomes the Problem of Wiffle-wobble. How does the existence of wiffle-wobble disprove God?

Have you really taken any logic classes? I mean seriously? Did you sleep through them?

all that is necessary is for the christian to know that what i am presenting is wrong and evil, if they know that, a pretty basic assumption that can be made, the majority of the world agrees child rape is wrong, sorry if your too stupid to know that. I was not getting bogged down in your nonsense. Sorry don't like that get the fucks out.

Philosophers tend to avoid 'basic assumptions'. Things need to be defined, if you were an educated person you would realise this.

You are also completely misunderstanding or simply mispresenting the Problem of Evil.

The Problem of Evil is not... "most of us find xyz to be evil, therefore God must do as well, but he allows it to happen... wtf".

The problem of evil concerns an internal contradiction in the nature of God... it is really very basic logic, and as it is your singular objection to God you should probably learn it.

Though I think for the most part he is wrong, I would go out on a limb and say Plantiga is far more educated in philosophy then you and here is a gem of a quote from him : 'typically draws its premisses from the stock of propositions accepted by nearly every sane man, or perhaps nearly every rational man" about natural theology, a theology that tries to use logic and reason.

1: You are not Plantinga, you have only heard that name since joining here.
2: That is not a quote from Plantinga, he was not illiterate.
3: That is not really relevant to this lesson.

"Plantinga's answer to the second of these questions is equivocal. On the one hand he says that his argument 'is not a successful piece of natural theology', since natural theology 'typically draws its premisses from the stock of propositions accepted by nearly every sane man, or perhaps nearly every rational man', whereas the key premiss of his proof is not of this sort: 'a sane and rational man who thought it through and understood it might none the less reject it'. On the other hand he suggests that this key premiss is rather like Leibniz's Law: if we carefully ponder it, considering objections and its connections with other propositions, 'we are within our rights in accepting it'. Thus although these new versions of the ontological argument 'cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion . . . it is rational to accept their central premiss, [so] they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion'. (pp. 220 -1) " The Miracle of Theism- J.L. Mackie page 58, another philosopher citing it. Fuckin retard thinks he knows something.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:23:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:15:32 AM, izbo10 wrote:

If philosophers were as stupid as you, they would get stuck in a game of natural regress and never get anywhere. Anytime you start with a premise you have to assume your audience agrees. If they disagree they can dismiss the premise. To simply ask a philosopher to prove a premise you have already admitted to agreeing to is a serious fuckin waste of their time and laughable.

But your audience did not agree, your audience explicitly informed you of this fact. Everything you have 'learnt' is being passed back to us like an old meal.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:24:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:20:01 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:13:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:10:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:03:13 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:01:27 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:57:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:56:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:55:28 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:47:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Don't feed the troll, he is not interested in an actual conversation on this subject.

says, mr, I want to talk about the atheists worldview, to red herring a discussion about the christian worldview. stop trolling and add some questions or topics of value.

Can you try again in English please?

In my post about god and child rape, all you wanted to do was talk about morality in the atheist worldview, completely and utterly irrelevant to the christian worldview, which is what the conversation was about.

At no point did I want to talk about morality in the atheist worldview. I wanted you to define evil, which is a necessary pre-condition to any discussion of the problem of evil. You however merely wanted to troll. You seem to find English very difficult, perhaps you should find a forum that uses your native language?

I do not need to define evil,

Yes you did, otherwise the Problem of Evil becomes the Problem of Wiffle-wobble. How does the existence of wiffle-wobble disprove God?

Have you really taken any logic classes? I mean seriously? Did you sleep through them?

all that is necessary is for the christian to know that what i am presenting is wrong and evil, if they know that, a pretty basic assumption that can be made, the majority of the world agrees child rape is wrong, sorry if your too stupid to know that. I was not getting bogged down in your nonsense. Sorry don't like that get the fucks out.

Philosophers tend to avoid 'basic assumptions'. Things need to be defined, if you were an educated person you would realise this.

You are also completely misunderstanding or simply mispresenting the Problem of Evil.

The Problem of Evil is not... "most of us find xyz to be evil, therefore God must do as well, but he allows it to happen... wtf".

The problem of evil concerns an internal contradiction in the nature of God... it is really very basic logic, and as it is your singular objection to God you should probably learn it.

Though I think for the most part he is wrong, I would go out on a limb and say Plantiga is far more educated in philosophy then you and here is a gem of a quote from him : 'typically draws its premisses from the stock of propositions accepted by nearly every sane man, or perhaps nearly every rational man" about natural theology, a theology that tries to use logic and reason.

1: You are not Plantinga, you have only heard that name since joining here.
2: That is not a quote from Plantinga, he was not illiterate.
3: That is not really relevant to this lesson.

as I have said before, next time you want to take a brief foray into the world of logic, try a formal class in it first umkay?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:24:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:22:53 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:20:01 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:13:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:10:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:03:13 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:01:27 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:57:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:56:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:55:28 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:47:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Don't feed the troll, he is not interested in an actual conversation on this subject.

says, mr, I want to talk about the atheists worldview, to red herring a discussion about the christian worldview. stop trolling and add some questions or topics of value.

Can you try again in English please?

In my post about god and child rape, all you wanted to do was talk about morality in the atheist worldview, completely and utterly irrelevant to the christian worldview, which is what the conversation was about.

At no point did I want to talk about morality in the atheist worldview. I wanted you to define evil, which is a necessary pre-condition to any discussion of the problem of evil. You however merely wanted to troll. You seem to find English very difficult, perhaps you should find a forum that uses your native language?

I do not need to define evil,

Yes you did, otherwise the Problem of Evil becomes the Problem of Wiffle-wobble. How does the existence of wiffle-wobble disprove God?

Have you really taken any logic classes? I mean seriously? Did you sleep through them?

all that is necessary is for the christian to know that what i am presenting is wrong and evil, if they know that, a pretty basic assumption that can be made, the majority of the world agrees child rape is wrong, sorry if your too stupid to know that. I was not getting bogged down in your nonsense. Sorry don't like that get the fucks out.

Philosophers tend to avoid 'basic assumptions'. Things need to be defined, if you were an educated person you would realise this.

You are also completely misunderstanding or simply mispresenting the Problem of Evil.

The Problem of Evil is not... "most of us find xyz to be evil, therefore God must do as well, but he allows it to happen... wtf".

The problem of evil concerns an internal contradiction in the nature of God... it is really very basic logic, and as it is your singular objection to God you should probably learn it.

Though I think for the most part he is wrong, I would go out on a limb and say Plantiga is far more educated in philosophy then you and here is a gem of a quote from him : 'typically draws its premisses from the stock of propositions accepted by nearly every sane man, or perhaps nearly every rational man" about natural theology, a theology that tries to use logic and reason.

1: You are not Plantinga, you have only heard that name since joining here.
2: That is not a quote from Plantinga, he was not illiterate.
3: That is not really relevant to this lesson.

"Plantinga's answer to the second of these questions is equivocal. On the one hand he says that his argument 'is not a successful piece of natural theology', since natural theology 'typically draws its premisses from the stock of propositions accepted by nearly every sane man, or perhaps nearly every rational man', whereas the key premiss of his proof is not of this sort: 'a sane and rational man who thought it through and understood it might none the less reject it'. On the other hand he suggests that this key premiss is rather like Leibniz's Law: if we carefully ponder it, considering objections and its connections with other propositions, 'we are within our rights in accepting it'. Thus although these new versions of the ontological argument 'cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion . . . it is rational to accept their central premiss, [so] they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion'. (pp. 220 -1) " The Miracle of Theism- J.L. Mackie page 58, another philosopher citing it. Fuckin retard thinks he knows something.

Your ability to copy and paste proves...?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:25:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:24:33 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:22:53 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:20:01 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:13:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:10:20 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:03:13 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:01:27 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:57:45 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:56:24 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:55:28 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 7:47:02 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Don't feed the troll, he is not interested in an actual conversation on this subject.

says, mr, I want to talk about the atheists worldview, to red herring a discussion about the christian worldview. stop trolling and add some questions or topics of value.

Can you try again in English please?

In my post about god and child rape, all you wanted to do was talk about morality in the atheist worldview, completely and utterly irrelevant to the christian worldview, which is what the conversation was about.

At no point did I want to talk about morality in the atheist worldview. I wanted you to define evil, which is a necessary pre-condition to any discussion of the problem of evil. You however merely wanted to troll. You seem to find English very difficult, perhaps you should find a forum that uses your native language?

I do not need to define evil,

Yes you did, otherwise the Problem of Evil becomes the Problem of Wiffle-wobble. How does the existence of wiffle-wobble disprove God?

Have you really taken any logic classes? I mean seriously? Did you sleep through them?

all that is necessary is for the christian to know that what i am presenting is wrong and evil, if they know that, a pretty basic assumption that can be made, the majority of the world agrees child rape is wrong, sorry if your too stupid to know that. I was not getting bogged down in your nonsense. Sorry don't like that get the fucks out.

Philosophers tend to avoid 'basic assumptions'. Things need to be defined, if you were an educated person you would realise this.

You are also completely misunderstanding or simply mispresenting the Problem of Evil.

The Problem of Evil is not... "most of us find xyz to be evil, therefore God must do as well, but he allows it to happen... wtf".

The problem of evil concerns an internal contradiction in the nature of God... it is really very basic logic, and as it is your singular objection to God you should probably learn it.

Though I think for the most part he is wrong, I would go out on a limb and say Plantiga is far more educated in philosophy then you and here is a gem of a quote from him : 'typically draws its premisses from the stock of propositions accepted by nearly every sane man, or perhaps nearly every rational man" about natural theology, a theology that tries to use logic and reason.

1: You are not Plantinga, you have only heard that name since joining here.
2: That is not a quote from Plantinga, he was not illiterate.
3: That is not really relevant to this lesson.

"Plantinga's answer to the second of these questions is equivocal. On the one hand he says that his argument 'is not a successful piece of natural theology', since natural theology 'typically draws its premisses from the stock of propositions accepted by nearly every sane man, or perhaps nearly every rational man', whereas the key premiss of his proof is not of this sort: 'a sane and rational man who thought it through and understood it might none the less reject it'. On the other hand he suggests that this key premiss is rather like Leibniz's Law: if we carefully ponder it, considering objections and its connections with other propositions, 'we are within our rights in accepting it'. Thus although these new versions of the ontological argument 'cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion . . . it is rational to accept their central premiss, [so] they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion'. (pp. 220 -1) " The Miracle of Theism- J.L. Mackie page 58, another philosopher citing it. Fuckin retard thinks he knows something.

Your ability to copy and paste proves...?

You were an idiot for claiming it is not Plantiga and also that Alvin Plantiga completely disagrees with your previous statements.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:25:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:24:16 AM, izbo10 wrote:

as I have said before, next time you want to take a brief foray into the world of logic, try a formal class in it first umkay?

I have asked you repeatedly where do you get this arrogance from? How do you presume to lecture people more capable in logic than you?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:27:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:25:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:24:16 AM, izbo10 wrote:

as I have said before, next time you want to take a brief foray into the world of logic, try a formal class in it first umkay?

I have asked you repeatedly where do you get this arrogance from? How do you presume to lecture people more capable in logic than you?

In all my logic classes never scoring below a 96% and watching a$$holes like you who thought they knew logic go into the same class and sit there till the end of the test stumped and asking he prof for extra credit so that they could pull a 70% or higher out of their a$$. That is my experience with formal logic classes, whats yours? Oh thats right you haven't taken one to know whether, what you think is logic actually works in a formal class.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:28:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:25:40 AM, izbo10 wrote:


You were an idiot for claiming it is not Plantiga and also that Alvin Plantiga completely disagrees with your previous statements.

It was not Plantinga, he could spell. You can't even spell his name. You have failed to show how Plantinga disagrees with me. Also argument from authority fallacy.

lrn2logic.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:30:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:27:40 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:25:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:24:16 AM, izbo10 wrote:

as I have said before, next time you want to take a brief foray into the world of logic, try a formal class in it first umkay?

I have asked you repeatedly where do you get this arrogance from? How do you presume to lecture people more capable in logic than you?

In all my logic classes never scoring below a 96% and watching a$$holes like you who thought they knew logic go into the same class and sit there till the end of the test stumped and asking he prof for extra credit so that they could pull a 70% or higher out of their a$$. That is my experience with formal logic classes, whats yours? Oh thats right you haven't taken one to know whether, what you think is logic actually works in a formal class.

1: Didn't you do business studies? A subject that challenges no one.
2: I repeatedly show you your logical fallacies.
3: If I took a class to acquire your logic skills I would hope to be murdered by eugencists.
4: What was your professors name?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:30:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:25:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:24:16 AM, izbo10 wrote:

as I have said before, next time you want to take a brief foray into the world of logic, try a formal class in it first umkay?

I have asked you repeatedly where do you get this arrogance from? How do you presume to lecture people more capable in logic than you?

What is the cause of your arrogance, that makes you think you are more logical then a person who constantly got higher then 96% and in numbers sets and structures the mathematical logic class actually got higher then a 100% because I did some of his extra credit assignments, which the professor asked me to help some of the other students through. So I ask you considering I have seen how average joe logic like yours goes over in logic classes, what makes you arrogant enough to think you know more then me about it.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:33:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:30:23 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:27:40 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:25:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:24:16 AM, izbo10 wrote:

as I have said before, next time you want to take a brief foray into the world of logic, try a formal class in it first umkay?

I have asked you repeatedly where do you get this arrogance from? How do you presume to lecture people more capable in logic than you?

In all my logic classes never scoring below a 96% and watching a$$holes like you who thought they knew logic go into the same class and sit there till the end of the test stumped and asking he prof for extra credit so that they could pull a 70% or higher out of their a$$. That is my experience with formal logic classes, whats yours? Oh thats right you haven't taken one to know whether, what you think is logic actually works in a formal class.

1: Didn't you do business studies? A subject that challenges no one.
2: I repeatedly show you your logical fallacies.
3: If I took a class to acquire your logic skills I would hope to be murdered by eugencists.
4: What was your professors name?

Retard,retard,retard your rebuttal was about, philosophers and their use of premises, I showed how a famed philosopher explained it. Not an argument from authority when the topic is about how those authorities use things. Are you fuckin stupid or well I guess that makes for the true dichotomy here.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 8:34:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/22/2011 8:30:27 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:25:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/22/2011 8:24:16 AM, izbo10 wrote:

as I have said before, next time you want to take a brief foray into the world of logic, try a formal class in it first umkay?

I have asked you repeatedly where do you get this arrogance from? How do you presume to lecture people more capable in logic than you?

What is the cause of your arrogance, that makes you think you are more logical then a person who constantly got higher then 96% and in numbers sets and structures the mathematical logic class actually got higher then a 100% because I did some of his extra credit assignments, which the professor asked me to help some of the other students through. So I ask you considering I have seen how average joe logic like yours goes over in logic classes, what makes you arrogant enough to think you know more then me about it.

There is no arrogance, in every conversation I have demonstrated that you are not a logical thinker and I am. Your main rebuttal is the claim you are educated in logic, this is not a rebuttal at all. The arguments should speak for themselves.

Mathematical logic, I lay no claim to.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.