Total Posts:120|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is evil a direct consequence of free will?

Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 11:38:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm more of a nihilist and think that evil doesn't exist. If I had to define something as evil, it would probably be altruism.

I'd think a tri-omni creator God wouldn't allow free will, but if he did, and actually considered things evil, than yes free will is the cause of it.

Even in Christianity, had God not given Adam and Eve free will by putting the tree of knowledge in the garden, and perhaps hiding it, than the original sin wouldn't have happened, and evil wouldn't exist.

I 'd say the important thing to ask, along similar lines is; would a benevolent God allow free will. Some say if he didn't allow free will, we couldn't consider him benevolent, so he'd have to allow us to choose evil, to be good.

I'd think an omnibenevolent God would actually not allow free will, in my opinion.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 11:44:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Well what do you mean by evil ? do you mean things that cause death, suffering ? or do you have something else in mind ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 2:30:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't believe either of you have been genuine in your responses, I'll wait for more integrity I think.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
rocknroller
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 8:20:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing. : :

With the belief of free will, God could make his people believe that they have a choice between good and evil while he kills them all for not listening to his voice and obeying his commandments.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 9:00:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

No.

Anecdotal, so submitted as simply a data point:

I am going to my liquor cabinet. I am really in the mood for a drink, right now (free will) directs me to a rum and Coke. In the process of pouring said, I can't help but notice that nobody seems to be effected.

To be fair, I will repeat the process, though the current anecdotal is after 2 such similar attempts to find evil in my excersize of free will. I will make rum the control and move to Gin and Sprite, though I don't think the difference will be observable.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
V5RED
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2015 9:11:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If by evil, you mean the commission of morally bad acts, then yes. Free will allows us to choose between acts that are moral, immoral, and amoral.

If by evil, you mean the objective standard of evil, then no because that exists whether or not people exist to commit morally bad acts.
MaxSterling
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 1:33:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

I think that free will is what we use to determine what is evil so we can go on from there. If we all come to a totally separate conclusion on what evil is, we will generally view each other as evil.
"But why do you want REVENGE?!"

"I HAVE REASONS!!!!!"
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 5:05:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Define the two.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 8:49:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 2:30:21 PM, bulproof wrote:
I don't believe either of you have been genuine in your responses, I'll wait for more integrity I think

Evil is a term that has being applied to everything from abortion, to hitler to gays to justin beiber.

So it kind of matters alot to define what you mean by "evil" lest it is so vague it could mean anything and everything.

So what are you talking about when YOU talk about "evil" ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Chaosism
Posts: 2,659
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 3:39:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Free Will does not create possibility; that which is not possible cannot be made possible by the act of choice. Alternative options must be possible *first* in order for them to be available by choice. In essence, I think it's the other way around: Free Will is a consequence of the existent possibility of evil.

This is very general. Many of the terms used here have varied, vague, or subjective definitions, so this restricts the validity of any logical assessments.
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 3:45:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 3:39:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Free Will does not create possibility; that which is not possible cannot be made possible by the act of choice. Alternative options must be possible *first* in order for them to be available by choice. In essence, I think it's the other way around: Free Will is a consequence of the existent possibility of evil.

This is very general. Many of the terms used here have varied, vague, or subjective definitions, so this restricts the validity of any logical assessments. : :

One cannot talk about evil without talking about a contrast called good. Since they are both subjective terms, each individual has their own definition of what evil or good is.
IntellectVsSpirit5000
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 3:51:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

How do you create real love? Free will. You let the weeds and the crops grow together. When they are grown you keep the crops and you trash the undesired weeds. In the end you are left with real love, but you must face evil if you allow free will. Just how reality is. To get a jet to lift off the ground, it takes a lot of complex math and principles of physics to get the jet tofly. The equation for obtaining real love and a "family" is terribly complex, but if love is what you're after, the juice might just be worth the squeeze.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,659
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 3:53:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 3:45:36 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:39:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Free Will does not create possibility; that which is not possible cannot be made possible by the act of choice. Alternative options must be possible *first* in order for them to be available by choice. In essence, I think it's the other way around: Free Will is a consequence of the existent possibility of evil.

This is very general. Many of the terms used here have varied, vague, or subjective definitions, so this restricts the validity of any logical assessments. : :

One cannot talk about evil without talking about a contrast called good. Since they are both subjective terms, each individual has their own definition of what evil or good is.

Hence, the disclaimer-like remark at the end of my previous post.
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 3:57:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 3:53:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:45:36 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:39:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Free Will does not create possibility; that which is not possible cannot be made possible by the act of choice. Alternative options must be possible *first* in order for them to be available by choice. In essence, I think it's the other way around: Free Will is a consequence of the existent possibility of evil.

This is very general. Many of the terms used here have varied, vague, or subjective definitions, so this restricts the validity of any logical assessments. : :

One cannot talk about evil without talking about a contrast called good. Since they are both subjective terms, each individual has their own definition of what evil or good is.

Hence, the disclaimer-like remark at the end of my previous post.: :

I was straightening out your confusing thoughts.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,659
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:14:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 3:57:30 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:45:36 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:39:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Free Will does not create possibility; that which is not possible cannot be made possible by the act of choice. Alternative options must be possible *first* in order for them to be available by choice. In essence, I think it's the other way around: Free Will is a consequence of the existent possibility of evil.

This is very general. Many of the terms used here have varied, vague, or subjective definitions, so this restricts the validity of any logical assessments. : :

One cannot talk about evil without talking about a contrast called good. Since they are both subjective terms, each individual has their own definition of what evil or good is.

Hence, the disclaimer-like remark at the end of my previous post.: :

I was straightening out your confusing thoughts.

Sorry for the confusion, then. I didn't think it was that convoluted, but it wouldn't be the first time I've done that.
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:23:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 4:14:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:57:30 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:45:36 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:39:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Free Will does not create possibility; that which is not possible cannot be made possible by the act of choice. Alternative options must be possible *first* in order for them to be available by choice. In essence, I think it's the other way around: Free Will is a consequence of the existent possibility of evil.

This is very general. Many of the terms used here have varied, vague, or subjective definitions, so this restricts the validity of any logical assessments. : :

One cannot talk about evil without talking about a contrast called good. Since they are both subjective terms, each individual has their own definition of what evil or good is.

Hence, the disclaimer-like remark at the end of my previous post.: :

I was straightening out your confusing thoughts.

Sorry for the confusion, then. I didn't think it was that convoluted, but it wouldn't be the first time I've done that. : :

I.Q. has nothing to do with being a good communicator. In fact, some geniuses are more fascinated with their own genius than making sure their listeners are hearing their thoughts correctly. A genius with wisdom knows the listener is more important than his I.Q.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,659
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:33:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 4:23:26 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:14:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:57:30 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:45:36 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:39:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Free Will does not create possibility; that which is not possible cannot be made possible by the act of choice. Alternative options must be possible *first* in order for them to be available by choice. In essence, I think it's the other way around: Free Will is a consequence of the existent possibility of evil.

This is very general. Many of the terms used here have varied, vague, or subjective definitions, so this restricts the validity of any logical assessments. : :

One cannot talk about evil without talking about a contrast called good. Since they are both subjective terms, each individual has their own definition of what evil or good is.

Hence, the disclaimer-like remark at the end of my previous post.: :

I was straightening out your confusing thoughts.

Sorry for the confusion, then. I didn't think it was that convoluted, but it wouldn't be the first time I've done that. : :

I.Q. has nothing to do with being a good communicator. In fact, some geniuses are more fascinated with their own genius than making sure their listeners are hearing their thoughts correctly. A genius with wisdom knows the listener is more important than his I.Q.

I will never claim to be a genius and even if my I.Q. were tested, I reject the notion that someone's intelligence can be quantified by a single value. I believe it to be too multidimensional. Anyhow, I'm sure I'll mess it up my communications again in the future - I'm still not very experienced in conveying my thoughts on matters like this.

Is this BOG, by chance?
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 4:40:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 4:33:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:23:26 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:14:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:57:30 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:45:36 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:39:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Free Will does not create possibility; that which is not possible cannot be made possible by the act of choice. Alternative options must be possible *first* in order for them to be available by choice. In essence, I think it's the other way around: Free Will is a consequence of the existent possibility of evil.

This is very general. Many of the terms used here have varied, vague, or subjective definitions, so this restricts the validity of any logical assessments. : :

One cannot talk about evil without talking about a contrast called good. Since they are both subjective terms, each individual has their own definition of what evil or good is.

Hence, the disclaimer-like remark at the end of my previous post.: :

I was straightening out your confusing thoughts.

Sorry for the confusion, then. I didn't think it was that convoluted, but it wouldn't be the first time I've done that. : :

I.Q. has nothing to do with being a good communicator. In fact, some geniuses are more fascinated with their own genius than making sure their listeners are hearing their thoughts correctly. A genius with wisdom knows the listener is more important than his I.Q.

I will never claim to be a genius and even if my I.Q. were tested, I reject the notion that someone's intelligence can be quantified by a single value. I believe it to be too multidimensional. Anyhow, I'm sure I'll mess it up my communications again in the future - I'm still not very experienced in conveying my thoughts on matters like this.

Is this BOG, by chance? : :

You are wiser than most intelligent people. Communicating with wisdom is something that is given by the one who created people who appear to be intelligent. I have met many good communicators with wisdom but most good communicators are not wise at all. They just appear to be intelligent.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 5:01:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 4:33:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:23:26 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:14:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:57:30 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:45:36 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:39:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Free Will does not create possibility; that which is not possible cannot be made possible by the act of choice. Alternative options must be possible *first* in order for them to be available by choice. In essence, I think it's the other way around: Free Will is a consequence of the existent possibility of evil.

This is very general. Many of the terms used here have varied, vague, or subjective definitions, so this restricts the validity of any logical assessments. : :

One cannot talk about evil without talking about a contrast called good. Since they are both subjective terms, each individual has their own definition of what evil or good is.

Hence, the disclaimer-like remark at the end of my previous post.: :

I was straightening out your confusing thoughts.

Sorry for the confusion, then. I didn't think it was that convoluted, but it wouldn't be the first time I've done that. : :

I.Q. has nothing to do with being a good communicator. In fact, some geniuses are more fascinated with their own genius than making sure their listeners are hearing their thoughts correctly. A genius with wisdom knows the listener is more important than his I.Q.

I will never claim to be a genius and even if my I.Q. were tested, I reject the notion that someone's intelligence can be quantified by a single value. I believe it to be too multidimensional. Anyhow, I'm sure I'll mess it up my communications again in the future - I'm still not very experienced in conveying my thoughts on matters like this.

Is this BOG, by chance?

Of course it is.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Chaosism
Posts: 2,659
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 5:45:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 5:01:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:33:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:23:26 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:14:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:57:30 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:45:36 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:39:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Free Will does not create possibility; that which is not possible cannot be made possible by the act of choice. Alternative options must be possible *first* in order for them to be available by choice. In essence, I think it's the other way around: Free Will is a consequence of the existent possibility of evil.

This is very general. Many of the terms used here have varied, vague, or subjective definitions, so this restricts the validity of any logical assessments. : :

One cannot talk about evil without talking about a contrast called good. Since they are both subjective terms, each individual has their own definition of what evil or good is.

Hence, the disclaimer-like remark at the end of my previous post.: :

I was straightening out your confusing thoughts.

Sorry for the confusion, then. I didn't think it was that convoluted, but it wouldn't be the first time I've done that. : :

I.Q. has nothing to do with being a good communicator. In fact, some geniuses are more fascinated with their own genius than making sure their listeners are hearing their thoughts correctly. A genius with wisdom knows the listener is more important than his I.Q.

I will never claim to be a genius and even if my I.Q. were tested, I reject the notion that someone's intelligence can be quantified by a single value. I believe it to be too multidimensional. Anyhow, I'm sure I'll mess it up my communications again in the future - I'm still not very experienced in conveying my thoughts on matters like this.

Is this BOG, by chance?

Of course it is.

I figured; thanks. I haven't as much experience with him as most of you guys.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 5:53:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 5:45:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 5:01:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:33:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:23:26 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:14:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:57:30 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:45:36 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:39:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Free Will does not create possibility; that which is not possible cannot be made possible by the act of choice. Alternative options must be possible *first* in order for them to be available by choice. In essence, I think it's the other way around: Free Will is a consequence of the existent possibility of evil.

This is very general. Many of the terms used here have varied, vague, or subjective definitions, so this restricts the validity of any logical assessments. : :

One cannot talk about evil without talking about a contrast called good. Since they are both subjective terms, each individual has their own definition of what evil or good is.

Hence, the disclaimer-like remark at the end of my previous post.: :

I was straightening out your confusing thoughts.

Sorry for the confusion, then. I didn't think it was that convoluted, but it wouldn't be the first time I've done that. : :

I.Q. has nothing to do with being a good communicator. In fact, some geniuses are more fascinated with their own genius than making sure their listeners are hearing their thoughts correctly. A genius with wisdom knows the listener is more important than his I.Q.

I will never claim to be a genius and even if my I.Q. were tested, I reject the notion that someone's intelligence can be quantified by a single value. I believe it to be too multidimensional. Anyhow, I'm sure I'll mess it up my communications again in the future - I'm still not very experienced in conveying my thoughts on matters like this.

Is this BOG, by chance?

Of course it is.

I figured; thanks. I haven't as much experience with him as most of you guys.

Well, the delusional schizophrenia coupled with the alcohol-damaged brain kinda bleeds through, even on brief posts.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 7:32:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

I like psychologist Phil Zimbardo's definition, BP.

Evil is the systematic use of power to hurt physically, harm psychologically or destroy the lives of others.

So it's the consequence of power without accountability for its use, and of unethical systems of thought.
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 7:57:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 5:45:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 5:01:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:33:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:23:26 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:14:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:57:30 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:45:36 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:39:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Free Will does not create possibility; that which is not possible cannot be made possible by the act of choice. Alternative options must be possible *first* in order for them to be available by choice. In essence, I think it's the other way around: Free Will is a consequence of the existent possibility of evil.

This is very general. Many of the terms used here have varied, vague, or subjective definitions, so this restricts the validity of any logical assessments. : :

One cannot talk about evil without talking about a contrast called good. Since they are both subjective terms, each individual has their own definition of what evil or good is.

Hence, the disclaimer-like remark at the end of my previous post.: :

I was straightening out your confusing thoughts.

Sorry for the confusion, then. I didn't think it was that convoluted, but it wouldn't be the first time I've done that. : :

I.Q. has nothing to do with being a good communicator. In fact, some geniuses are more fascinated with their own genius than making sure their listeners are hearing their thoughts correctly. A genius with wisdom knows the listener is more important than his I.Q.

I will never claim to be a genius and even if my I.Q. were tested, I reject the notion that someone's intelligence can be quantified by a single value. I believe it to be too multidimensional. Anyhow, I'm sure I'll mess it up my communications again in the future - I'm still not very experienced in conveying my thoughts on matters like this.

Is this BOG, by chance?

Of course it is.

I figured; thanks. I haven't as much experience with him as most of you guys. : :

There's nothing to worry about engaging with me. I will get you to think about things in a different way if you're open-minded. Most people in this forum are not very open to new knowledge.
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 7:59:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 5:53:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/14/2015 5:45:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 5:01:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:33:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:23:26 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:14:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:57:30 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:45:36 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:39:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Free Will does not create possibility; that which is not possible cannot be made possible by the act of choice. Alternative options must be possible *first* in order for them to be available by choice. In essence, I think it's the other way around: Free Will is a consequence of the existent possibility of evil.

This is very general. Many of the terms used here have varied, vague, or subjective definitions, so this restricts the validity of any logical assessments. : :

One cannot talk about evil without talking about a contrast called good. Since they are both subjective terms, each individual has their own definition of what evil or good is.

Hence, the disclaimer-like remark at the end of my previous post.: :

I was straightening out your confusing thoughts.

Sorry for the confusion, then. I didn't think it was that convoluted, but it wouldn't be the first time I've done that. : :

I.Q. has nothing to do with being a good communicator. In fact, some geniuses are more fascinated with their own genius than making sure their listeners are hearing their thoughts correctly. A genius with wisdom knows the listener is more important than his I.Q.

I will never claim to be a genius and even if my I.Q. were tested, I reject the notion that someone's intelligence can be quantified by a single value. I believe it to be too multidimensional. Anyhow, I'm sure I'll mess it up my communications again in the future - I'm still not very experienced in conveying my thoughts on matters like this.

Is this BOG, by chance?

Of course it is.

I figured; thanks. I haven't as much experience with him as most of you guys.

Well, the delusional schizophrenia coupled with the alcohol-damaged brain kinda bleeds through, even on brief posts. : :

You haven't learned anything from the voice of the Lord, Anna. All you can hear is the flesh of this world that perishes.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 8:41:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 7:59:02 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 5:53:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/14/2015 5:45:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 5:01:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:33:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:23:26 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:14:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:57:30 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:45:36 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:39:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Free Will does not create possibility; that which is not possible cannot be made possible by the act of choice. Alternative options must be possible *first* in order for them to be available by choice. In essence, I think it's the other way around: Free Will is a consequence of the existent possibility of evil.

This is very general. Many of the terms used here have varied, vague, or subjective definitions, so this restricts the validity of any logical assessments. : :

One cannot talk about evil without talking about a contrast called good. Since they are both subjective terms, each individual has their own definition of what evil or good is.

Hence, the disclaimer-like remark at the end of my previous post.: :

I was straightening out your confusing thoughts.

Sorry for the confusion, then. I didn't think it was that convoluted, but it wouldn't be the first time I've done that. : :

I.Q. has nothing to do with being a good communicator. In fact, some geniuses are more fascinated with their own genius than making sure their listeners are hearing their thoughts correctly. A genius with wisdom knows the listener is more important than his I.Q.

I will never claim to be a genius and even if my I.Q. were tested, I reject the notion that someone's intelligence can be quantified by a single value. I believe it to be too multidimensional. Anyhow, I'm sure I'll mess it up my communications again in the future - I'm still not very experienced in conveying my thoughts on matters like this.

Is this BOG, by chance?

Of course it is.

I figured; thanks. I haven't as much experience with him as most of you guys.

Well, the delusional schizophrenia coupled with the alcohol-damaged brain kinda bleeds through, even on brief posts. : :

You haven't learned anything from the voice of the Lord, Anna. All you can hear is the flesh of this world that perishes.

Repeat: delusional schizophrenia
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bills_friend
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 8:48:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 8:41:56 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/14/2015 7:59:02 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 5:53:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/14/2015 5:45:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 5:01:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:33:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:23:26 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:14:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:57:30 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:45:36 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:39:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Free Will does not create possibility; that which is not possible cannot be made possible by the act of choice. Alternative options must be possible *first* in order for them to be available by choice. In essence, I think it's the other way around: Free Will is a consequence of the existent possibility of evil.

This is very general. Many of the terms used here have varied, vague, or subjective definitions, so this restricts the validity of any logical assessments. : :

One cannot talk about evil without talking about a contrast called good. Since they are both subjective terms, each individual has their own definition of what evil or good is.

Hence, the disclaimer-like remark at the end of my previous post.: :

I was straightening out your confusing thoughts.

Sorry for the confusion, then. I didn't think it was that convoluted, but it wouldn't be the first time I've done that. : :

I.Q. has nothing to do with being a good communicator. In fact, some geniuses are more fascinated with their own genius than making sure their listeners are hearing their thoughts correctly. A genius with wisdom knows the listener is more important than his I.Q.

I will never claim to be a genius and even if my I.Q. were tested, I reject the notion that someone's intelligence can be quantified by a single value. I believe it to be too multidimensional. Anyhow, I'm sure I'll mess it up my communications again in the future - I'm still not very experienced in conveying my thoughts on matters like this.

Is this BOG, by chance?

Of course it is.

I figured; thanks. I haven't as much experience with him as most of you guys.

Well, the delusional schizophrenia coupled with the alcohol-damaged brain kinda bleeds through, even on brief posts. : :

You haven't learned anything from the voice of the Lord, Anna. All you can hear is the flesh of this world that perishes.

Repeat: delusional schizophrenia : :

Antichrists use terms like blasphemer, satan, the devil, false prophet and now delusional schizophrenia or insane when they hear the voice of the Lord. The religious Jews called the saints "blasphemers" of their god of Abraham, the God that only God's prophets knew.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,659
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 8:51:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 7:57:45 PM, bills_friend wrote:

There's nothing to worry about engaging with me. I will get you to think about things in a different way if you're open-minded. Most people in this forum are not very open to new knowledge.

I hold no worries. However, I have no reason to believe that your word is of any more worth than the other people here, so it will have to make it through my gauntlet of skepticism, so to speak. You can provide evidence for the claim that you are the word of God by telling me something about myself that you could not possibly know otherwise, for instance. However, this is not the thread to have such a conversation, as it strays far from the topic.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2015 8:51:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/14/2015 8:48:36 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 8:41:56 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/14/2015 7:59:02 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 5:53:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/14/2015 5:45:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 5:01:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:33:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:23:26 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 4:14:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:57:30 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:53:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:45:36 PM, bills_friend wrote:
At 9/14/2015 3:39:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/13/2015 10:57:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
That is the question I'm posing.

Free Will does not create possibility; that which is not possible cannot be made possible by the act of choice. Alternative options must be possible *first* in order for them to be available by choice. In essence, I think it's the other way around: Free Will is a consequence of the existent possibility of evil.

This is very general. Many of the terms used here have varied, vague, or subjective definitions, so this restricts the validity of any logical assessments. : :

One cannot talk about evil without talking about a contrast called good. Since they are both subjective terms, each individual has their own definition of what evil or good is.

Hence, the disclaimer-like remark at the end of my previous post.: :

I was straightening out your confusing thoughts.

Sorry for the confusion, then. I didn't think it was that convoluted, but it wouldn't be the first time I've done that. : :

I.Q. has nothing to do with being a good communicator. In fact, some geniuses are more fascinated with their own genius than making sure their listeners are hearing their thoughts correctly. A genius with wisdom knows the listener is more important than his I.Q.

I will never claim to be a genius and even if my I.Q. were tested, I reject the notion that someone's intelligence can be quantified by a single value. I believe it to be too multidimensional. Anyhow, I'm sure I'll mess it up my communications again in the future - I'm still not very experienced in conveying my thoughts on matters like this.

Is this BOG, by chance?

Of course it is.

I figured; thanks. I haven't as much experience with him as most of you guys.

Well, the delusional schizophrenia coupled with the alcohol-damaged brain kinda bleeds through, even on brief posts. : :

You haven't learned anything from the voice of the Lord, Anna. All you can hear is the flesh of this world that perishes.

Repeat: delusional schizophrenia : :

Antichrists use terms like blasphemer, satan, the devil, false prophet and now delusional schizophrenia or insane when they hear the voice of the Lord. The religious Jews called the saints "blasphemers" of their god of Abraham, the God that only God's prophets knew.

You aren't "the voice of the Lord", Brad. You are a hopeless, hapless, helpless, and homeless ex-drunk with significant mental illness(es). You are also supposed to be dead by now, according to your delusional rantings.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."