-->
@Safalcon7
I thought death imposed from God's sentence ain't sitting well with your understanding of free will.
Did you?
Proving god is a lie
Posts
Total:
223
-->
@Stephen
I mean it in the Genesis 2:17 sense. “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” Sound reasonably clear. Thing is neither of them did die " that day" if the BIBLE is to be believed? Adam we are told in the bible lived to nearly 1000 years!
But that's not what the Hebrew means. There is a Hebrew/biblical phrase for "on that specific day" (b'etzem hayom hazeh) and there is a phrase for "shall be subject to a death penalty" (mot tamut (or mot yumat)). The text is precise. The moment they ate, they were subject to a death penalty.
-->
@Stephen
I'm not indulging in any discussion of contradictions within the Bible even though I know there is, as I studied the scholarly works on Bible. But out of respect to the bible and the fact that I didn't read the whole Bible yet myself, I wouldn't want to take part in such exchanges. However, I don't think death or any calamity for that matter has anything to conflict with the concept of Free Will imposed by God.
-->
@Safalcon7
If you want to be a good Christian, don't read the Bible. Ask Jesus to guide you and you will be way better off following your gut.
-->
@Safalcon7
But.. that's not what I said - I said that if that parent KNEW that the kid would be harmed, then that parent would stop it. Period. This has nothing to do with "controlling every motion", because that's not what I said. Your constructing a response that isn't actually responding to my argument proper.
Also... do you believe that heaven is all good? If you do, do you then believe that you have free will in heaven? Because according to the bible, the answer is yes in both case - and heaven is seen as the BEST PLACE - so obviously you can be all good, meaning no evil happens, and still have free will.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Even if, say, the parent is granted the power of all-knowing ability of his son's whereabouts and accordingly he saves him from every turn of bad events of his life- how does the son knowing that he's being controlled at every second of his life feel? Does he ever develop any respect for a life he has no contribution in?
That's why I added the "If" clause. Even what youre saying is included in it. If the parent knew, he would not let any harm come to the boy. So, it's basically a disruption of natural course of one's life. Ironic cause you don't think God can offer free will because he would act obnoxious doing so as mortals would harm or be harmed in anyway but you also expect him to intervene whenever situations stand that way.
-->
@Safalcon7
Appeal to natural fallacy- why would intervening in unnecessary harm interfere with free will? That would be like saying our inability to fly with wings is interfering with our free-will. It's ridiculous.
-->
@Stephen
Who are you referring to when you say _ "those who believe in a God not depicted in The Bible" ?
The people that applies to.
Tell me, how is it "free will " if it comes with a death sentence?
What do you mean?
-->
@Theweakeredge
do your parents allow their children to run into the middle of the street to "feel the freedom of their choices"?
No, because an all-loving God provided us parents to watch over us.
Please quit the theodicy.
No
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Like pagans and polytheists or do you man like Jews and Muslims?
Like all of the above.
-->
@Tarik
Then why do kids still die? Because obviously the parents aren't good enough - cause sometimes parents can't do anything - like when their starving - tell me - how exactly does allowing millions to starve do anything to "keep their freewill" it's quite literally not their fault.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Then why do kids still die? Because obviously the parents aren't good enough - cause sometimes parents can't do anything - like when their starving - tell me - how exactly does allowing millions to starve do anything to "keep their freewill" it's quite literally not their fault.
Because with life comes death, it's not limited to kids. Parents could've done something, they had the freewill to not be parents to children they can't support.
-->
@rosends
The premises are not proper.1. There is no statement that God is "all-loving"2. Being all-knowing and allowing other beings freedom of choice do not contradict3. Being all powerful does not mean doing whatever you think should be doneThe problem is often not one of premises leading to logical conclusions, but a lack of agreed upon definitions of terms and expectations.A child is taken to a doctor who gives the child a shot. The child yells at the parent "you don't love me because you let him hurt me."If the child believed that the parent is "all loving" in a sense that the parent would never let any harm befall the child, can the child disprove the existence of the parent based on the pain of the shot?If the parent lets the child try to ride a bike without any instruction or preparation, knowing that the child will fall, and the child falls, does this deny the parent's foreknowledge?Socrates is a manall men are mortalSocrates is mortalbut define "man" first. If "man" is related to the presence of genitalia, DNA or something else, then is a dead man a man? The google dictionary has "an adult male human being" which says nothing about being animated. If so, that man who has already died is no longer mortal but is still a man so all men are not mortal. Precision in language is vital. So far, all living humans of either gender who have been born prior to 1905 have died in a biological sense. If Socrates was born before 1905, then he has died in a biological sense.
So just to be clear, are you saying god is not all-loving? And all-powerful? And all-knowing? Or are you saying that people misunderstand what "loving means". Or all powerful means? Or all-knowing means?
Man is defined in this context as an human. Whether he is dead or not changes nothing.
Do you deny that all humans are mortal? Are there people who do not die?
Are you opposed to logic?
-->
@Theweakeredge
Uh no - you have an epistemological problem their bud - first of all - a syllogism does not provide "proof" at least not in the regard that you're referring to. Syllogisms provide a deductive argument that can highlight logical flaws in certain propositions; however, unless the premises of such syllogism are true, that syllogism is unsound, therefore, yes - empirical evidence is indeed proof.Furthermore, you cannot be 100% of almost anything, its an absurd claim to make - it means you KNOW that there are no other possibilities - but you don't even have 100% evidence that the reality you share is real - is that reality most likely real, yes, but that's not what you said, you said: "100% certain", please own that.
Taking about qualifiers - I assume you noticed mine. Or did you conveniently miss them?
-->
@Tarik
An all loving god would not let evil occur if he was all powerful.You’re begging the question, how do you know this?
It goes without saying. If an all loving god existed, to permit evil to exist demonstrates he is either not all loving or not all powerful.
Unless of course you are suggesting that god loves perfectly and that within that perfect loving - suffering and pain and evil are perfectly acceptable? Who would want to be loved by that kind of god?
@ Stephen
how is it "free will " if it comes with a death sentence?
Because death is not permanent, and is not a punishment. It is merely the end or mortal life, which is not an end to life. It is the portal to eternal life. I know you oppose that, but, isn't that just a self-limiting admission that there are limitations? A pessimistic view, in my book. Why should limitation be a prevailing view? What? Cannot find joy in this life? Perhaps it's the paradigm embraced. So, embrace another.
-->
@Stephen
In that day is an expression used to mean a certain length of time just like we use today, when we say things like" back in my day we had to walk through 10 ft. Of snow ............. " or something similar, but it is not referring to one single day.
-->
@Timid8967
Unless of course you are suggesting that god loves perfectly and that within that perfect loving - suffering and pain and evil are perfectly acceptable?
What do you mean by acceptable in this context?
-->
@Tarik
What? You do realize that that isn't an argument right? That's an excuse for your god - why should humans that aren't even educated have to factor that in, whenever we have the freedom to have children, it ought to be where everyone can eat? Right? That's the fault of god, not the people that god made.
-->
@Timid8967
Please - point them out - and while your at it - please actually respond to my argument
-->
@Timid8967
So just to be clear, are you saying god is not all-loving? And all-powerful? And all-knowing? Or are you saying that people misunderstand what "loving means". Or all powerful means? Or all-knowing means?Man is defined in this context as an human. Whether he is dead or not changes nothing.Do you deny that all humans are mortal? Are there people who do not die?Are you opposed to logic?
I am saying that there is nothing that says God is all loving, so claiming it as a premise is a flaw.
I am saying that the idea of being loving at all is undefined so the premise cannot be used to draw clear conclusions.
I am saying that if man is dead then he is no longer mortal as he cannot die so that syllogism, predicated on that definition fails.
If you can't allow for precision of language then you will not be able to draw logical conclusions.
Why, by the way, do you ask if I am "opposed" to logic if my point was not about being opposed to logic?
My #22 was not entirely correct because both posits of a syllogism must be correct to legitimize the conclusion. What I missed saying is that both posits can be correct and the conclusion may still be false. Example:
P1 Bird fly
P2 Camels walk
C. Butterflies swim
A syllogism cannot have any element you please. The logic must still hold, or the syllogism isn’t.
-->
@Theweakeredge
That's an excuse for your God
God doesn’t need an excuse, He’s God, if anyone’s making excuses it’s you in regards to people and personal responsibility.
why should humans that aren't even educated have to factor that in
Because it’s common sense, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that you shouldn’t have kids if you can’t take proper care of them, it’s their fault not God, saying otherwise is an excuse for their irresponsible lifestyle choices.
-->
@Theweakeredge
What we need is rational proof. For instance - all men are mortal. Socrates is human - therefore Socrates is mortal. And so far as the premises are correct then - the conclusion and the proof will be true. Not probable but true. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079/post-links/263887
As you can see - god - at least the god of the bible is not true - assuming the premises are correct. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079/post-links/263887
Qualifiers in my very first post - indicating that conclusions can be 100% accurate and known if the premises are correct.
you cannot be 100% of almost anythingYou did notice the qualifier right? Because you seem to have a problem with qualifiers, its fairly obvious that somethings are within the realm of certainty, but there mere fact that there are a couple propositions like that do not prove that you can be certain with the vast majority of things - please - go ahead and prove 100% that the reality we perceive is real.Also do you agree with the rest of my argument? Because your non-interaction would suggest that.
I suppose I missed your initial qualifier - although it was against the thrust of your argument.
Are you 100% sure of your proposition: "its fairly obvious that somethings are within the realm of certainty, but there mere fact that there are a couple propositions like that do not prove that you can be certain with the vast majority of things".https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079/post-links/263909. Is it a true statement or not? It certainly seems like "Fairly obvious" is fact enough for you.
Uh no - you have an epistemological problem their bud - first of all - a syllogism does not provide "proof" at least not in the regard that you're referring to. Syllogisms provide a deductive argument that can highlight logical flaws in certain propositions; however, unless the premises of such syllogism are true, that syllogism is unsound, therefore, yes - empirical evidence is indeed proof.Furthermore, you cannot be 100% of almost anything, its an absurd claim to make - it means you KNOW that there are no other possibilities - but you don't even have 100% evidence that the reality you share is real - is that reality most likely real, yes, but that's not what you said, you said: "100% certain", please own that. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079/post-links/263909
I cannot see why this is an epistemological problem for me. Please explain further. A syllogism does provide proof. Yes, it is deduction, based on induction. I do not know why you need to highlight what I had already said in my first post. I agree that syllogisms require sound propositions. Empirical evidence is therefore not proof - but evidence. You are incorrect to call it proof. It can only at best be a best guess. or reasoned position. Empirical evidence is a part of the puzzle - not the solution. It is the process - not the end. Of course I am willing to be corrected.
You seem certainly sure that you are correct. Besides being 100% does not require "knowing there are no other possibilities". It requires knowing what is true. To suggest otherwise is diversion tactics. Bank tellers do not learn how to tell a counterfeit by looking at lots of counterfeits- but by knowing how the real ones feel and smell and rub on their fingers. I own my words.
-->
@Tarik
Um... its also a right that all people have? You shouldn't have to worry about not being able to afford it - its not even that these children are the only people that starve- THE PARENTS STARVE TOO - the people starving IN GENERAL is the problem bud.
-->
@Timid8967
If you are referring to an interpretation of a fact, then no empirical evidence is not proof, but a deductive argument is not necessarily sound, and yes - dependent on the claim itself, empirical evidence is a proof.
-->
@rosends
. The moment they ate, they were subject to a death penalty.
And that is my point., Rosi. As I have said, It is hardly "free will" when it came with a death sentence , in my own opinion.
-->
@Timid8967
I have put the challenge out there - and hopefully some will attempt to do so - so that others like you and me are able to remind them that proof is proof.
So are you now saying then that the theist do indeed have the burden of proof? Or are you just discussing here what counts as proof according to only YOU?
Listen. the BIBLE makes the claims about the existence of god. Christians believe what the BIBLE says about god and all of his wonderous works. The burden of proof is on them.
-->
@Tarik
Who are you referring to when you say _ "those who believe in a God not depicted in The Bible" ?The people that applies to.
Any examples?
-->
@Timid8967
This debate soon descended into the same old tosh.
Which only continues to prove the obvious.....People are variously conditioned....And GODS are assumptions relative to conditioning.
And is proving a GOD, a lie.....Or is it a lie to prove a GOD.
Though if one needs to prove that a GOD is a lie, then it is seemingly also necessary to prove that a GOD isn't a lie..... So conversely, no one needs to prove anything.
Hence, descent into religious Toshland.
All good communicative fun though.