Guys, I think you missing the whole idea/understanding of what subjective/objective is.
When you look to yourself to determine if something is right or wrong, you are being subjective.
The moment you look outside yourself to measure against, you are now being objective.
So you can either look to yourself (subjective) to determine what is right or wrong, or you can look to something external, like a law, etc to determine what is right/wrong (objective)
Folks want to shout "SUBJECTIVE" when it comes to determining behavior, but as soon as you pose a scenario/question like rape, and say one guy thinks it's ok, the other guy thinks it's wrong, folks start acting like morality must now be objective.
Also, don't confuse the individual with society-- they are two distinct entities. Granted, the individual is a part of a society....but the moment the individual looks beyond himself (i.e. looks toward society) to determine what's right or wrong, the individual is being objective...
Society as an entity can also be subjective or objective. When the society looks inward to determine morality, society is being subjective. Society can very well make laws that are subjective, but when the individual looks to this law, the individual is being objective.
Which of these points is incorrect or wrong in your opinion?
Why the universe needs a creator:
1. We observe everything around us as having a beginning and end.
2. When things begin, they need a creator-- they need something(s) outside of themselves in order for them to be created. Things do not "create" themselves into being.
3. If you ask this of everything, you ultimately arrive at the question of "matter" itself. What caused matter to exist?
4. "Matter" could not create itself (refer to item 2 above)
5. Therefore, matter needs a creator that is not made of "matter" (if what created "matter" was also made of "matter, then this would contradict what we observe...see item 2).
6. Apply this to universe. Logic would tell us the universe needs a beginning (see item 1.....science and physics has also pointed us to this conclusion too).
Now which of these are you not understanding or questioning?
"Provide a clear and philosophically valid reason why God - as you define him - is the only possible thing that doesn’t need a creator."
First off, i'm hoping that's not what you based your vote on, because if you did, you misinterpret and misread what I wrote. Tis a pity. Lol I don't need to do that because that is not what I said. I don't think i ever said God is the ONLY thing that doesn't need a creator. What I did say was that the Creator itself would not be created. Again, big difference. Put another way, what I said is this: if "X" created the universe, then "X" itself would not be "created"....could there very well be other things outside the universe, such as "Y" and "Z", that don't need a creator? Sure. Personally, I don't believe that, but again, that's not what I'm arguing (I can argue that later). That wasn't part of my argument, and it's not accurate for you to say or imply that's what I said.. Again, what I said was this: What created the universe would need to be an Uncaused Cause (i.e. uncreated). I never said it was the ONLY thing that was uncreated.
Now what I did say too was that everything we observe in the universe requires a creator, something outside of itself that helps it or is a catalyst for it coming into being. If you disagree with this, then I challenge you to find anything that did not need something else in order for it to exist.
Let's take this one at a time. What part of my argument did you not understand or are you questioning? Thought it was pretty clear and simple:
Why the universe needs a creator:
1. We observe everything around us as having a beginning and end.
2. When things begin, they need a creator-- they need something(s) outside of themselves in order for them to be created. Things do not "create" themselves into being.
3. If you ask this of everything, you ultimately arrive at the question of "matter" itself. What caused matter to exist?
4. "Matter" could not create itself (refer to item 2 above)
5. Therefore, matter needs a creator that is not made of "matter" (if what created "matter" was also made of "matter, then this would contradict what we observe...see item 2).
6. Apply this to universe. Logic would tell us the universe needs a beginning (see item 1.....science and physics has also pointed us to this conclusion too).
Now which of these are you not understanding or questioning?
Let me ask you this, if there are two possibilities for a situation-- either A or B...not other possibility, only A and B are possible...and you show (reluctant to say "prove) that A is not logical or possible...does that mean the only alternative is B?
Now, substitute A= "subjective" and B="objective". That's it. NO other alternatives. It's either subjective or objective-- there is no in-between. Now if you show that A is not logical or possible, doesn't that imply that the only alternative is B (Objective)? That's one way to prove or draw conclusions about objectivity.
Your hypothetical scenario basically proves my point. You are saying in your hypothetical that you can't be subjective because with opposing views, one has to be wrong. In order to call the "other" wrong, yo uhave to an appeal to objective standard against which to measure it. You are saying the person made that claim is wrong. By saying that, you are appealing to an objective standard that is "outside" the two individuals. You are saying "See, you think this...but when i compare it to this standard ___________ you are wrong."
To put another way, suppose to guys are arguing about how long 12" is.
Joe thinks 12" is about the length of a banana
Bob thinks 12" is about the length of a motorcycle
Who is right? Who is wrong? How would you determine (or better yet, how should THEY determine) how long 12" is really? THey should use not what they "think" is correct, but rather some objective standard that is outside of themselves, such as a ruler or some other thing that is known to be 12".
I feel his comments regarding materialism, etc (pretty much most of what he countered with) was a distraction to what the point was.
I provided quite a bit of warrant for the immaterial to exist. I cited things such as "dreams", "ideas", "concepts" of things that exist that are not made of matter (i.e not material, aka "immaterial"). I further clarified and agreed and said that while these are indeed rooted or come from the physical, that does not mean that they themselves are physical (e.g. smoke comes from fire...that doesn't mean smoke IS fire.). If the response (yours or his) is "those things are physical", then my immediate response would be "OK, provide some physical details/dimensions of a dream."
I never said that the immaterial can only be a deity, did I? No. I was starting from a basic position that states, only the immaterial could create the material. As i mentioned early on, other immaterial things exist-- dreams, ideas, concepts. I never said nor implies that these are deities or God.
Finally , with regard to "not requiring a cause is limited only to god". I never said that,did I? Re-read my arguments. What I say/imply is this: Material things that are a part of our physical universe require a cause. Why? Because our scientific observation shows us, and supports the idea, that physical/material things require a cause. What I also said is that "God" would need to be an Uncaused Cause. I did not say God is the only Uncaused Cause...but I'm also not arguing that there exists other Uncaused Causes. Do not put arguments into my mouth lol.
The ground he's standing on is shaky ground at best.
If he is actually correct (i.e. right, and not wrong) in his assessment that morality is subjective, then that means that he is right....But it also means that I'm right as well, since we make our own morality in a subjective morality world.
To be clear, I think both of your are missing the point. my point is pretty simple.
A) Science supports the notion that what we observe in the material world/universe, tells us that everything that is made of matter requires a cause external to itself.
B) Ultimately, you get to the question of "matter" itself-- what caused "matter' to exist?
C) One can logically reason that "matter" needs a cause, and that cause can not be matter, based on item (A) above (matter can not cause matter to exist).
D) Whatever caused matter to exist is NOT made of matter (see (A))
My points were that:
a) Things exist that are made of matter
b) Things exist that are not made of matter (I cited some examples)
Perhaps "property of matter" was a wrong choice of words. Bottom line, "force" is not made of matter. It is the interaction between objects.
You say it is impossible for something to come from nothing. How can you be so sure? Does your mind, does the human capability, know the extent of what is capable within our universe and, dare I say, outside the realm of our universe (if such a thing exists).
I cited a few examples of things that not made of material. Dreams, thoughts, ideas. YOU (Type1) are the ones that are saying these are physical things. I say they are not. So if you say are physical things, then please provide physical attributes of a dream, thought, idea (how much does a dream weigh....what is the length and width of a dream, etc)
Bottom line:
- if you say "matter" has always existed, then that flies in the face of what we observe scientifically in the universe (i.e. all things have a beginning and an end).
- If you say "matter" has not always existed, then you have the additional question of what created "matter"?
If you say "matter" created "matter", then that flies in the face of what we observe scientifically (we do not observe things creating themselves into existence)
What is left?
The debate is about banning AR-15. The reasoning behind banning AR-15's is because they are considered dangerous...correct?
Go research how many people have actually been killed by AR-15's...
I do not support any gun regulations because I feel that doesn't address the issue. The issue is not the guns, the issue is the people. THe human heart. Getting rid of guns, stricter gun controls, etc doesn't get to the heart of the problem-- a person's desire to kill/injure another person. THAT, is the problem.
As long as Man (Woman) have the desire/propensity to harm/kill another person, do not remove my ability to defend myself (take away my guns).
Sorry...wasn't able to log on this weekend...work got in the way. I'll address your questions here:
Immaterial - means not made from matter...not having physical dimensions. Certain thigns exists that are not made of matter: ideas, dreams, concepts, etc. While yes, abstract things may have their root in the material, this does not mean or imply that they themselves are made of matter. Use the scientific method....tell me how wide a dream is...how muc it ways, etc. You can't, because dreams have no physical dimensions.
I'm not saying just because something exists outside our material university does not make it exempt from causality. By no means am I saying that. But if you don't have an Uncaused Cause, then by definition you would have a series of infinite causes, which in and of itself isn't logical
Consider: If you agree that A caused B, then consider this. Now without an Uncaused Cause, you are basically stating that there is an infinite number of Causes, stretchign back infinitely. But if that were the case, then Cause B would never be reached....why? Because you would have an infinite number (without number) of causes occurring before B would even B caused.....likewise A....likewise whatever caused A, ....it boggles the mind, but those are the implications. Logically, you just can't have a series of infinite causes.
Imagine an infinite number of dominoes lined up. Consider Domino X somewhere in the middle.....in order for Domino X to topple, the one before it would need topple...But in order for that one before it to topple, the one before IT would need topple...and so on....but if you avhe an infinite number of dominoes (i.e. causes), then you would never get to domino X....
Let's keep some perspective folks. AR-15's, while they certainly make for eye-catching headlines, are not the greatest danger.
In 2016, over 40K people were killed in vehicle accidents. While I don't know the exact stats, my gut tells me the number of people killed by AR-15's is MUCH MUCH LOWER (I say that facetiously).
In 2016, more people were killed by KNIVES than by AR-15s (according to the FBI).
While I respect the "March for our Lives" movement, etc the fact remains, a student is more likely to be killed in a vehicle ON THE WAY TO SCHOOL than they are by a school shooting....
The story of the rich young man and Jesus stating one cannot serve God and mammon (it was Jesus by the way, and not the Pope who first said it ;-) ) is teaching the idea of "do not make money your god". Scripture say money is evil. What does it say? Money is the ROOT of all evil. Big difference. it's the disordered love of money that is wrong. That is why Jesus says why it's hard for someone that is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven....why? because they often make money their "god" and lose focus of what is REALLY important.
Jesus knew what was in the rich young man's heart. Perhaps if the rich young man valued God way more than his possessions (money), God may not have said for him to give away everything. Jesus didn't tell Zaccheus to give his possessions.
Sure, GOd could make a realm where all people all go to Heaven. But that would require him to basically remove our free will. Let's return to the analogy of my son. What if instead I said, "Look, Son. YOu can not go out. I forbid you. I know what you need, and so I'm going to require you to stay here with me and get what you need." How happy do you think my son would be? Trust me, it's not fun lol.....I think we've all been in situations where we are "forced" to do what we don't want (even though it may be the best thing for us).
I think removing people's ability to choose is more in line with what a Stalin would do....
Parenthood is often a good analogy to the relationship of God with people (I"ve heard it said a man's relationship with God is a reflection of his relationship with his father).
I have a teenage son. Sometimes he doesn't have money. He usually wants to hang with his friends. Naturally, I want to spend time with him, so I'd rather he be with me and the family. Do I force him? Nope. On the weekends I usually cook out (smoke some brisket or pulled pork- it's what we do). But he wants to go out with his friends. Again, do I force him to stay with me? Nope. But I do tell him "Look son, if you stay here, you can eat all you want and have your fill. Heck, bring your friends along, too." But he'll choose to go out. Now, he doesn't have money, so he won't be eating when he goes out and he gets hungry. In fact, you may hear him lament that "he's starving". Would you accuse me of starving him, of causing him to suffer? I would hope not. He doesn't get what he needs (or wants) due to the choices he makes.
But then...what if he reconsiders and wants to return back home. He says "Wow, I could really eat good if I just go return home." Would I say "Nope, not gonna have it. Sorry, you can't come back." Nope. I would welcome him back with open arms and give him what he needs. That's exactly what God does. He shows/tells us the path. Whatever path we choose, God honors it. If we choose the right path, he lets us do what we want. If we choose the wrong path, he lets us do what we want. If we choose the wrong path, but later what to return to him, he welcomes us back. Something tells me Stalin would have not have been so kind lol.
God doesn't PUT or SEND people to Hell. People go there of their own accord. Another analogy (albeit an imperfect analogy) would be this....imagine you want to go from San Antonio to El Paso. And really, those are the only two places you can go. And I tell you "Ok Alec, to get El Paso you want to go take I-10 West......That is the path that will get you to West. BUT PLEASE DO NOT TAKE I-10 EAST . I-10 EAST WILL NOT TAKE YOU TO EL PASO!! And please, don't be deterred by the fact that I-10 West is just lonely boring path...it's long, desolate and boring with nothing interesting along the way. But trust me, when you get there you will be rewarded." And yet, despite all best efforts to help you, guide you, and warn you, you get in your car, and you start driving down I-10 East. I'm not the one getting in the car, directing you....YOU are the one making these decisions to get in the car and go down the path.
Now you may offer all sorts of arguments....."Everybody is saying that if I take I-10 East I will get to El Paso...." or "Driving down I-10 East is so much more fun!".....I just shake my head and say "Yes, but that is not the path to El Paso."
Now let's relate this to God. What is Hell? Hell is the absence of God-- pure and simple. In simplest terms, that is how my faith defines Hell. People "suffer" because they choose not to be with Him. In effect, they are imposing the suffering on themselves.
You argument is flawed and I'm assuming by your statements you do not understand what the Church teaches about Free Will, following God, etc.
1. Your Stalin argument is flawed in it's comparison vs. God. Stalin FORCED people to do his will. God doesn't.
2. Where does God say we must sell everything and give away our possessions?
3. God does show us what Heaven and Hell are like. He explains it ot us in the Bible, through revelation, and through His Church.
You are on the right track though. The path is wide and easy that leads to destruction. More people will follow that path then the what that leads to Heaven.
1. How do people end up in Hell?
2. Do people have a choice on where they end up?
Let me make sure I understand your position: You want the reward (heaven), but not want to have to do the work (live a good life), is that correct? That's sort of like saying, I want to get paid money, but I don't want to have to work for it. Sounds kinda selfish don't you think?
God doesn't "send people to heaven." God gives people a choice-- you can choose either Heaven or Hell. The choices you make in your life get you either closer to, and ultimately in, Heaven...or Hell.
It's like you're in the middle of nowhere....20 miles to the East is a lush oasis with everything you would ever want or need, you would have an abundant life.....20 miles to the West is a barren desert, with no food or water. The path to the East looks hard and difficult. But the path to the West looks fun!
However, God tells you "Travel East, my son. You'll have everything you ever want forever. But if you travel West, death and destruction await." If you choose to travel West, who's fault is it when you arrive and there is death and destruction? Not God's....YOURS.
Appreciate the comments. As noted earlier, I don't care about votes, etc. lol. I'm just here to engage in discussion and debate.
As noted elsewhere, I’m not here to “win” debates, garner votes, or win approval form others. I’m here to engage discussion.
I don’t adhere to the following formula:
a) Here are the rules/definitions of the debate (regardless of how outlandish they are)
b) If you agrees to the debate, you accept these rules/definitions
c) If you accept the debate, you agree to my definitions.
d) I can say what I want within the confines of my rules and definitions, can you cant counter because you agreed to the rules by accepting my definition.
e) Therefore I win
It’s pretty laughable actually. I think the only thing it accomplished was underscore the fact that the way he wins is by defining things his own way. Lol
Seems you have a misunderstanding of the Christian idea of hell. At least the Catholic belief of Hell, anyway. And I don't want ot assume that this is what your whole argument is based on then your whole argument falls....
Hell in short is the absence of God.
God basically says: "I want you to be with me. To be with me, you must obey my commandments-- it's your choice though. I will not force you."
God doesn't send us to hell, we choose to go there by the actions we commit in this life. That is what the Christian faith teaches about God (at least the Catholic faith anyway).
Imagine if you will a train station. At one end of the station is a train that says "To Heaven", and at the end of the other is a station that says "To Hell". If we choose to keep God's commandments and follow his ways, we are stepping foot on the train to heaven. If we choose to disobey his commandments and not follow his ways, we are stepping foot on the train to hell. So, in essence, our whole life is a series of choices, and depending on those choices we are stepping foot on/off either train. At death, our ability to choose is gone. Which ever train we are on when we die, that is where we are headed. God gives you what you want-- if you want to be with him (i.e. you obey his commandments), he'll grant your desire. If you want to not be with him (ie. you disobey his commandments), he gran that as well. He will always honor your free will choice.
TO paraphrase C.S. Lewis, there are those people who look God and say "Thy will be done", and there are those who look at him and say "My will be done." To both folks, God replies "Thy will be done."
I get it that you don't understand the concept that just because X is dependent on the physical, doesn't make X physical.
Physical thing is needed for a thought, but that doesn't mean the thought is physical. Again, yo usay it is, but you can't prove it.
Science can't measure, weigh, or take any physical dimensions of a thought-- because there are none. And you've yet to point to any science that says otherwise. lol.
I think you've said a lot in your arguments:
1. You believe in stuff not supported (even refuted) by science
2. you stretch definitions
No, I can't show you a thought that is not dependent on the physical. But I have no need to-- the fact that I can't show you a thought that is not contingent on the physical doesn't prove that a thought is physical.
That's like me saying "Show me a person that is not contingent on air. See that proves people are air!" Sorry. it just doeson't work that way.
I agree totally that thoughts, ideas, dreams are dependent (contingent) on the physical. But we all know just because something is dependent (contingent) on the physical doesn't mean it's the same nature/substance as that which it's dependent on.
X is contingent upon Y. Meaning, X exists only if Y is the case.
THis does not mean X is the same nature or substance of Y.
Dictionary didn't tell me I'm wrong. The dictionary you used simply bolstered my case. Simply because something is dependent on on something else, it doesn't mean that "that something" is physical, non-physical, etc.
Yet again, you're simply stretching a definition because you can't come to terms with the fact that non-physical, non-material things do indeed exist.
Contingent. Allow me to quote Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do think it means what you think it means.” LOL
Contingent means to be dependent on. Nothing more. If something, let’s call it “X”, is contingent upon something else, then that means it’s dependent upon it. If something, X, is dependent on a physical thing, that doesn’t necessarily mean that “X” is itself a physical thing. Dreams, thoughts, might be contingent on physical things, but that doesn’t mean they are themselves physical things. Any attempt to use contingent in this way is stretching the definition to fit what you want. I’m using the definition that is agreed upon by scholars.
Perhaps you can point to sources that use contingency the way you use it?
Again, the fact that you have to look to something else (i.e. brainwaves) instead of physically describing (scientifically observing) dreams/thoughts/ideas themselves makes it obvious—you are unable to physically describe idea/thought/dream because they have no physical dimensions. And why is that? Because they are not physical things.
Finally, just to reiterate, the question is not about whether something is contingent or not. The question is on whether or not non-physical things (things that are "im-material" or not made of amtter) exist or not.
I would argue everything we observe/experience is contingent (dependent upon) something else. I would challenge you to find one thing in this world (nay, the universe) that is not contingent on something else.
So your use of the word "contingent" is a red -herring, not relevant to whether or not something is physical (material) or non-physical (im-material).
Again, let me re-iterate-- are there things that exist that are not physical/material things? I believe you would agree that yes, there are things that exist that are not physical/material. Correct?
Again, the multi-tasking etc, doesn't say anything about the content of the thought My original comment was that Science has not been able to determine the content of a thought based on brainwaves. You posted the link as a counter to my statement-- but the counter doesn't work. What does the study show? At best it shows they can tell when a person is thinking. What does it not show? WHAT the person is thinking. Big difference. But you understand that, right? Science has yet to be able to analyze the brainwaves of a person and be able to say definitively "Yes, this person is thinking of a monkey juggling 4 bowling balls while riding a Harley Davidson". While the study in the article looks very interesting, and having the subjects multi-task was very interesting, does it say what they were thinking about as they did the tasks (pushing a button, talking, etc). I'm often thinking of different things while multi-tasking, and not necessarily the tasks at hand-- perhaps i'm thinking about that letter I forgot to mail....or the burrito i'm having for lunch......or the Spurs 2014 championship (their sweetest, in my opinion). So again, I stand firm on my point-- science has yet to say definitively the content of a thought simply by analyzing brainwaves.
Contingency doesn't determine whether or not something is physical or not. You understand that, right? Just because a thought is contingent on the brain, doesn't mean the thought is a physical thing-- it just means it depends on the brain. You understand that right?
I believe your last few sentences are you conceding that there indeed exists things that are not physical. While they are contingent (dependent) on physical things to exist, they are not physical things themselves. The fact that non-physical things exist is a very important point, and is the foundation for future arguments.
When one comes to terms that are there are indeed things that can not be measured/observed via science (because they are not physical or material), then one no longer has the platform of "It must be proved by science in order for me to believe it!" to stand on. And this seems to be the platform of many atheists.
You posted your link to that Berkeley article in response to my point about Science has not been able to determine the content of a thought based on brainwaves. why would you post that link then in response to my comment?
Wow-- you are really reading something into that activity. The section you highlight refer to auditory and visual cues...not thoughts. Can you point to the passage in that Berkeley article where it says they are able to detect types of thoughts? Interesting the only mention of the word thought in that whole article are in the title and in the sentence....that's it.
By length, i meant length as a physical measurement, not a measurement of time. I think you've painted yourself into a corner. You basically anot provide physical dimensions for something like "thought", "idea" or "concept". The reason you have to point to brainwaves is because there are no physical attributes of "thoughts" or "ideas", so you are forced to look at something that is the result (or perhaps cause) of thoughts and ideas.
Spacetime-- the jury is stil out on whether it's a physical thing or not. Physicists, the biggest brains in the field, can't even agree on it. So if Physicists can't even agree to it, far be it from me to assume it's true simply because anonymous blogger on a website says it's true. But hey, that's just me.
The bottom line is this-- you're struggling to admit that there are indeed things that exist that are not composed of matter-- that are not composed of physical substance. Things like ideas, thoughts, and concepts. Because science directly measures the physical, the fact these very real things do not have physical presence implies that they can not be measured by science. Sure, you can measure by-products, effects, etc, but you can't measure or observe via science these thoughts or ideas directly. in fact, the by-products or effects are in fact GREAT evidence (dare I say proof) that these non-physical entities exist.
Nice try. It's a valiant attempt, but not successful. No where in that article did I find anything that hinted at science being able to tell what the content of a thought is by analyzing brainwaves. Simply put, science has not been able to say something like "This person is thinking of the Titanic" simply by analyzing brainwaves.
Ok. Let's discuss this further:
1. Can you tell me any physical attributes of an idea? Better yet, give me the physical dimensions of "idea" I'll help ya with some basics:
- what color is a thought?
- how much does a thought weigh?
- what is the length of a thought?
- what is the width of a thought ?
- what is the volume of a thought?
2. How much space does an idea or thought take up?
These are pretty basic things we learned in elementary science class when discussing physical objects.
**"Do you believe there are things that exist that do not have physical existence?"
I have no reason to believe that there are things that exist that do not have physical existence UNLESS they are contingent on the physical.
I have no reason to believe anything NOT CONTINGENT on the physical exists.**
Contingency is irrelevant to my question. It’s a simple yes/no question. I’m simply asking if you believe if there are things that exist that do not have physical existence. Answer it. Either you do or you don’t. Don’t dance around it with long-winded answers attempting to throw me off-base. It won’t work. Once I ask a question, I’m expecting an answer. I’m not asking you to explain why—if I want to know why, I will ask.
Based on your answers, I am assuming you would answer “YES” to this question. You are also adding on the clarifier/modifier indicating that these things are contingent on physical. So am I right in assuming you believe that non-physical things exist?
**Ok, so because the titanic is from the past and I know of it, it naturally must be in my memory, so to access the relevant facts associated with the titanic, I will need to activate my frontal lobe, and if my dopamine levels are where they need to be for me to accurately be able to communicate that memory from the frontal lobe to my language acquisition device, I can verbally indicate that I can recall images, books, and even movies I've seen that contain those relevant facts about the titanic.
This thought is a construct of the processes my brain and neurons go through with respects to that particular memory.**
Quit dancing around the question. The content of the thought is irrelevant (the contect of the thought could be anything—the Titanic…Jimi Hendrix…..Mother Theresa….Garfield the Cat…Lasagna). I’’m not asking you to provide details about the content of the thought. I’m asking you to provide the details, in physical terms, of “thought”.
Since each thought is contingent on the brain activities and neurotransmitter balance, types of thoughts exclusively associated with particular brain activity and particular neurotransmitters can be measured, and so you can accurately predict the types of thoughts someone is thinking by measuring the physical source from which the thought is an emergent construct.
This is not based on science. Sorry. You’re wrong. Science has not been able to determine the content of a thought based on brainwaves. Science at best says because of the brainwaves, this COULD BE a thougNice try. If you are so sure, perhaps you can point to the specific scientific research that proves this.
Well, are there any surfers that don't make footprints in the sand?
If it's the case that all surfers make footprints in the sand, then we could find a standard surfer footprint and more reasonably conclude the surfer's physical attributes from the series of footprints given the depth of each print, the incline there within, and the shape and size of the imprint from each part of the surfer's foot from their push-off while walking.
I could give you an estimate on height, weight, speed, gait, and overall body shape of the surfer that just walked or ran out to the ocean to surf from a standard of surfers' footprints and the measurement of the series of footprints in the sand.**
True. But you are not using science to provide attribute of the surfer. Science would be actually giving the physical dimensions on what you are observing about him. Taking weights, measuring height, providing observable features from the surfer itself. If you are basing your physical attributes on the footprint, you’re basically taking a guess (your best guess based on reasoning), not using science measure. You’re providing a theory that the object that made the footprint COULD BE a surfer, yay high, weighing x number of pounds etc. But it’s a theory, not a fact. Big difference.
The flaws with the "God cannot be Omni-Benevolent" argument is multi-fold:
Flaw 1.The person who states this is basically elevating themselves to the level of God and saying "I perceive and interpret things and events as God sees them". They operate on the assumption that how they see events (good, bad, very good, very bad, etc) is exactly how God would see it. I honestly think that's the height of arrogance-- to presume one see things as a potential All-Power being would...They think of the most dastardly, heinous crime they can think of, and then say "How can a benevolent God let this happen". THese sort of arguments insert an element of emotion into it. Rather than do that, it's best to think of things as either "good" or "bad". The argument then is, if a benevolent GOd is really good, why do bad things happen. But again, the person asking the question is assuming God sees things as they would.
Flaw 2. The person stating this argument is skipping a question that is not often asked. Might there be a reason to allow something bad to happen? As was mentioned, it's been said God allows bad things to happen to bring about a greater good. A young toddler might perceive the hypodermic needle about to pierce his skin as the worst thing imaginable. He might be screaming and yelling at his mom and the doctor because he feels it's terribly painful. What he doesn't understand (perceive) is the greater good (prevention of disease) that will come from such an act.
One can ask "Well what good could possibly come from allow ____________ to happen?" It's a great question. But just because you don't know or understand or even have the ability to perceive a greater good, doesn't mean there is no greater good that could come from it.
So you are proposing arguments something you don't necessarily believe in? Wow. Not quite sure I have ever heard that in a debate. If you don't believe in something, why are you posing it as justification for a certain position? Anyway...
When people say that Free Will can not exist with an Omniscient God (something that sees/knows everything), there are some flaws in that.
First, the proponent of that argument is making the assumption that God is "bound by time", in other words, God experiences (sees) things as we humans would. One could be really critical and say the proponent is elevating himself to God's status by saying he/she sees/experiences time the same way as God. If this being, God, is not bound by time (which most Theists believe), then God doesn't experience the past, present or future they way we do. Ever walk into a sports bar? The typical sports bar has 10+ TVs in them, all playing different games/events. A simple analogy would be imagine a sports bar with 3 TVs, and on TV 1 is the past, on TV 2 is the present, and on TV 3 is the future. God is able to watch simultaneously all 3 events in what has been described as the "Eternal Now." God's not predicting or forcing Joe to wear a red shirt next Thursday. God knows he will wear a red shirt, because from God's perspective, it's already happened and God saw it.
Granted it's an imperfect analogy, but when trying to relate to God, we are limited by our human capabilities. Now the atheist might say "Well, PROVE God is not bound by time!". That's a debate we can have....
2. "Things either physically exist or exist contingent on the physical."
Sorry, you're not answering the question. Let me repeat the question. What I asked is "Do you believe there are things that exist that do not have physical existence?"
I'm not asking if there are things that exist that depend on other physical things. I know that-- we this all around us (You and I both depend, are contingent on, physical things like food and water).
What I want to know is, do YOU believe there things that exist that do not have physical existence?
4. Regarding free will, thanks for your input. Would you agree though that you do have the free will to do what is possible? For example, you have the free will to stroll across the street, but you do not have the free will to jump to the moon, because...well, that is simply not possible.
5. Closed systems
I'm sorry. Who's definition of closed system are you using-- is that your own? Everything I learned in Thermodynamics states that within a closed system, energy is indeed exchanged in/out of the system, but not matter. Whereas in an open system, matter as well as energy is exchanged in/out of the system. DO you wish to go with this definition, or would you rather stick to yours? I’m good either way, but I do question where your definition came from, since it goes counter to what I learned in my engineering science classes.
Nonetheless, related to “open” systems, you said it is possible for something to last forever. Can you please provide an example and/or explain how you came to this conclusion?
1. **No.
If I think of a purple and orange striped mammal bird, this is not physical, it's a construct that I created with my physical brains/neurons.**
But here's the deal, since isn't measuring/observing the thought itself, is it? It's observing the activity of your brains/neurons. If I were to ask you to go give me the physical attributes, to observe/measure scientifically, that surfer over there, you wouldn't go to his footprints in the sand and begin to describe the footprints. If you did, I would say "no no no, describe the surfer for me, not these markings in the sand. For all I know, these markings in the sand may not have even been caused by that surfer dude."
While science can measure brainwaves, it doesn't guarantee or prove these are your thoughts.
I want you to describe for me, in physical terms, your thoughts. Here's a simple experiment to illustrate what I"m asking you. Imagine I gave you a black and white photo of the Titanic. And then I ask you, describe the picture for me. If you responded "well it's a 46,000 ton ship with 4 red and black smoke stacks." I'd say "no no no. You are describing for me the content of the picture. I want you to describe for me the picture itself, hopefully, you'd be able to say "Ohhhh, well...it's 4x6 inches....it's black and white.....it's less than a millimeter thick....it weighs very little, I don't know how much but we can measure it's weight if you'd like". Now, instead of the picture of the titanic, i want you to have an idea or thought of the titanic.
Describe for me in physical terms this thought.
1. **No.
If I think of a purple and orange striped mammal bird, this is not physical, it's a construct that I created with my physical brains/neurons.**
But here's the deal, since isn't measuring/observing the thought itself, is it? It's observing the activity of your brains/neurons. If I were to ask you to go give me the physical attributes, to observe/measure scientifically, that surfer over there, you wouldn't go to his footprints in the sand and begin to describe the footprints. If you did, I would say "no no no, describe the surfer for me, not these markings in the sand. For all I know, these markings in the sand may not have even been caused by that surfer dude."
While science can measure brainwaves, it doesn't guarantee or prove these are your thoughts.
I want you to describe for me, in physical terms, your thoughts. Here's a simple experiment to illustrate what I"m asking you. Imagine I gave you a black and white photo of the Titanic. And then I ask you, describe the picture for me. If you responded "well it's a 46,000 ton ship with 4 red and black smoke stacks." I'd say "no no no. You are describing for me the content of the picture. I want you to describe for me the picture itself, hopefully, you'd be able to say "Ohhhh, well...it's 4x6 inches....it's black and white.....it's less than a millimeter thick....it weighs very little, I don't know how much but we can measure it's weight if you'd like". Now, instead of the picture of the titanic, i want you to have an idea or thought of the titanic.
By the way, you didn't really answer question #3. You responded by saying "It's an existence that follows the laws of physics. It can do everything within its nature of physics."
I wasn't talking about physics, I was talking about logic. The question wasn't about physics, it was about logic. I'll repeat the question (and so that you are not distracted by words, I'll won't use the word "someone"):
When you speak of "God", would you consider "God" as a being that must follow the rules of logic? In other words, do you perceive this God (or the theist's View of God) as a being that can even do the illogical, such as make a square circle?"
1. How does science measure that which is contingent on the physical? Isn't the contingent still physical, so while science is measuring that which is contingent on the physical, isn't it still measuring the physical? Or....are you implying that science measures (or can measure) that which is not physical?
2. I'm curious-- why do you think that if God is to exist, it must be a physical being? Or if you don't believe in God, is it your believe that others (theists) believe God to be a physical being? This actually prompts a sub-question: Do you believe there are things that exist that do not have physical existence?
3. Good point. it doesn't have to be "someone". Let's just call it "Thing", so as not to be distracted by terms. Why do you believe that this Thing (God) must follow the laws of physics?
4. Unbounded Free Will-- what exactly do you mean by that? My idea of Free Will is the ability to do that which is indeed possible, and logical, to do. In other words, I don't believe the argument someone may have such as "I wan to jump to the moon, but I can't....see, I don't have free will! So free will doesn't exist!". Is that your understanding of Free Will? Better yet, just explain what you mean by "unbounded free will", and perhaps it's complement "bounded free will."
5. What do you mean by an "open system" and a "closed system"? Can you explain what a closed system is and what an open system is, in your opinion? Perhaps giving examples of each would be great, too.
To answer your question, and it's a good one, yes-- I believe it's possible for something to have a beginning AND last forever (this prompts other questions, but I will save those for later).
Just answer the questions. They are actually quite simple questions, just answer yes or no.
Honestly, there are somethings I just don't care about:
1. Who I'm debating. It's irrelevant. I'm here to debate and argue my position. I'll ask questions to better understand the oppositions point of view, and I will try to keep these are "yes / no' questions, but may deviate.
2. Votes. Again, it's irrelevant. I'm not here to win favor or see how many votes I get. I'm just here to debate.
3. I don't care what Joe, Jill Jane or whoever thinks . When I'm in a debate, what matters is what the opposition thinks.
4. Punctuation or grammar. It's a distraction. If the only thing the opposition can argue is that I misspelled a word or left off a comma or left out an apostrophe, then that's a distraction.
**Yet, omniscience is necessarily in conflict with human free will. If God is all-knowing, he'd know I was about to write "fart gun" before I wrote it. However, what if at the last second I chose to write "bumblebee larvae" instead? **
Um, wouldn't omniscience also mean he would know you'd change your mind at the last second to write bumblebee larvae? Or are you asserting that you would have the ability to outwit an omniscient being? Imagine if you will God watching you, nudging his buddies and saying "Watch this....bsh1 is about to write "fart gun" but at the last minute he's going to change his mind and write "bumblebee larvae" instead.....it's hilarious!". I jest (God, wouldn't have buddies to nudge lol). But you get my point. Why do you assume that simply because you change your mind at the last minute, God would not know that?
Um, I re-read what you wrote in the debate-- I do not see your answers there. Please tell me you're not already starting this debate off with a false statement....it's too soon. lol.
** Similarly, we recognize that the moral agency of someone with a gun to their head is reduced because their freedom of choice is impinged. For morality to matter at all, therefore, we must have free will. To the extent that Pro hypes objective morals, he ought to agree with this conclusion.**
True, but even the guy with the gun to his head still has the free will to choose to either do or not do something. We here stories every day of folks who summon the internal courage and fortitude to be strong despite being faced with death.
I humbly accept your challenge. I do have a few questions though, because it's not evident from your "definitions". These are all just simple yes/no questions-- no need to point me to other people, other articles or websites, or bring up other arguments not related to the question. Just a simple "yes" or "no" will do.
1. Do you believe that science measures/observes only the physical-- i.e. those things that have physical attributes?
2. When you speak of "God", are you speaking of an entity/being that has a physical existence (i.e. physical attributes that can observed via the scientific method)?
3.. When you speak of "God", would you consider "God" as a being that must follow the rules of logic? In other words, do you perceive this God (or the theist's View of God) as someone that can even do the illogical, such as make a square circle? Again, just another simple yes/no response.
4. Do you believe in Free Will? Again, a simple yes/no response. I'm not asking you if both Man's Free-Will and God's Omni-Benevolence can co-exist. I'm simply asking, do you believe in free will-- i.e. do you have the ability to choose what you think, say, do, type (even on a debate website)?
One last question, I promise...well, for now, anyway:
5. Do you believe that physical/material things can last indefinitely (i.e. forever)? Please keep in mind the distinction between "very long time" and "forever". Forever means without end-- no beginning, no end. always was and always will be. People often confuse the two. Hell, I often do....I tell people "Tim Duncan played for the Spurs forever". But what I mean is, he played for them for a really long time.
I look forward to your responses.
For the record, I'm not here to garner votes, etc. So I really don't care about votes, how people vote, etc. I basically fast-forwarded to your definition section....lol.... I'm here cuz I love a good debate.
Sorry, i'm not being difficult or avoiding your questioning. I'm actually trying to make sure I understand your questions. And I will also be asking more questions-- I don't like to assume, so I usually like to ask the opposition so I am sure what they intend.
I'm sorry. I'm actually going to have to ask you to clarify and explain your questions a bit more before I attempt to answer:
1) What is gravity?
2) What is air resistance?
It may sound trivial and elementary, but it's the basis for your questioning. So i want to make sure you and I are both on the same page when it comes to "gravity" and "air resistance".
Guys, I think you missing the whole idea/understanding of what subjective/objective is.
When you look to yourself to determine if something is right or wrong, you are being subjective.
The moment you look outside yourself to measure against, you are now being objective.
So you can either look to yourself (subjective) to determine what is right or wrong, or you can look to something external, like a law, etc to determine what is right/wrong (objective)
Folks want to shout "SUBJECTIVE" when it comes to determining behavior, but as soon as you pose a scenario/question like rape, and say one guy thinks it's ok, the other guy thinks it's wrong, folks start acting like morality must now be objective.
Also, don't confuse the individual with society-- they are two distinct entities. Granted, the individual is a part of a society....but the moment the individual looks beyond himself (i.e. looks toward society) to determine what's right or wrong, the individual is being objective...
Society as an entity can also be subjective or objective. When the society looks inward to determine morality, society is being subjective. Society can very well make laws that are subjective, but when the individual looks to this law, the individual is being objective.
In simple, terms, why do you think I exempted God from requiring a creator?
Which of these points is incorrect or wrong in your opinion?
Why the universe needs a creator:
1. We observe everything around us as having a beginning and end.
2. When things begin, they need a creator-- they need something(s) outside of themselves in order for them to be created. Things do not "create" themselves into being.
3. If you ask this of everything, you ultimately arrive at the question of "matter" itself. What caused matter to exist?
4. "Matter" could not create itself (refer to item 2 above)
5. Therefore, matter needs a creator that is not made of "matter" (if what created "matter" was also made of "matter, then this would contradict what we observe...see item 2).
6. Apply this to universe. Logic would tell us the universe needs a beginning (see item 1.....science and physics has also pointed us to this conclusion too).
Now which of these are you not understanding or questioning?
so say someone rapes someone.
Person A thinks rape is ok.
Person B thinks rape is not ok.
They are both right?
"Provide a clear and philosophically valid reason why God - as you define him - is the only possible thing that doesn’t need a creator."
First off, i'm hoping that's not what you based your vote on, because if you did, you misinterpret and misread what I wrote. Tis a pity. Lol I don't need to do that because that is not what I said. I don't think i ever said God is the ONLY thing that doesn't need a creator. What I did say was that the Creator itself would not be created. Again, big difference. Put another way, what I said is this: if "X" created the universe, then "X" itself would not be "created"....could there very well be other things outside the universe, such as "Y" and "Z", that don't need a creator? Sure. Personally, I don't believe that, but again, that's not what I'm arguing (I can argue that later). That wasn't part of my argument, and it's not accurate for you to say or imply that's what I said.. Again, what I said was this: What created the universe would need to be an Uncaused Cause (i.e. uncreated). I never said it was the ONLY thing that was uncreated.
Now what I did say too was that everything we observe in the universe requires a creator, something outside of itself that helps it or is a catalyst for it coming into being. If you disagree with this, then I challenge you to find anything that did not need something else in order for it to exist.
Let's take this one at a time. What part of my argument did you not understand or are you questioning? Thought it was pretty clear and simple:
Why the universe needs a creator:
1. We observe everything around us as having a beginning and end.
2. When things begin, they need a creator-- they need something(s) outside of themselves in order for them to be created. Things do not "create" themselves into being.
3. If you ask this of everything, you ultimately arrive at the question of "matter" itself. What caused matter to exist?
4. "Matter" could not create itself (refer to item 2 above)
5. Therefore, matter needs a creator that is not made of "matter" (if what created "matter" was also made of "matter, then this would contradict what we observe...see item 2).
6. Apply this to universe. Logic would tell us the universe needs a beginning (see item 1.....science and physics has also pointed us to this conclusion too).
Now which of these are you not understanding or questioning?
Let me ask you this, if there are two possibilities for a situation-- either A or B...not other possibility, only A and B are possible...and you show (reluctant to say "prove) that A is not logical or possible...does that mean the only alternative is B?
Now, substitute A= "subjective" and B="objective". That's it. NO other alternatives. It's either subjective or objective-- there is no in-between. Now if you show that A is not logical or possible, doesn't that imply that the only alternative is B (Objective)? That's one way to prove or draw conclusions about objectivity.
Your hypothetical scenario basically proves my point. You are saying in your hypothetical that you can't be subjective because with opposing views, one has to be wrong. In order to call the "other" wrong, yo uhave to an appeal to objective standard against which to measure it. You are saying the person made that claim is wrong. By saying that, you are appealing to an objective standard that is "outside" the two individuals. You are saying "See, you think this...but when i compare it to this standard ___________ you are wrong."
To put another way, suppose to guys are arguing about how long 12" is.
Joe thinks 12" is about the length of a banana
Bob thinks 12" is about the length of a motorcycle
Who is right? Who is wrong? How would you determine (or better yet, how should THEY determine) how long 12" is really? THey should use not what they "think" is correct, but rather some objective standard that is outside of themselves, such as a ruler or some other thing that is known to be 12".
Nice to see you.
So what comments specifically are you addressing with the reply "Depends on your logic". What comment specifically do you want me to address?
I feel his comments regarding materialism, etc (pretty much most of what he countered with) was a distraction to what the point was.
I provided quite a bit of warrant for the immaterial to exist. I cited things such as "dreams", "ideas", "concepts" of things that exist that are not made of matter (i.e not material, aka "immaterial"). I further clarified and agreed and said that while these are indeed rooted or come from the physical, that does not mean that they themselves are physical (e.g. smoke comes from fire...that doesn't mean smoke IS fire.). If the response (yours or his) is "those things are physical", then my immediate response would be "OK, provide some physical details/dimensions of a dream."
I never said that the immaterial can only be a deity, did I? No. I was starting from a basic position that states, only the immaterial could create the material. As i mentioned early on, other immaterial things exist-- dreams, ideas, concepts. I never said nor implies that these are deities or God.
Finally , with regard to "not requiring a cause is limited only to god". I never said that,did I? Re-read my arguments. What I say/imply is this: Material things that are a part of our physical universe require a cause. Why? Because our scientific observation shows us, and supports the idea, that physical/material things require a cause. What I also said is that "God" would need to be an Uncaused Cause. I did not say God is the only Uncaused Cause...but I'm also not arguing that there exists other Uncaused Causes. Do not put arguments into my mouth lol.
The ground he's standing on is shaky ground at best.
If he is actually correct (i.e. right, and not wrong) in his assessment that morality is subjective, then that means that he is right....But it also means that I'm right as well, since we make our own morality in a subjective morality world.
It's self-refuting.
To be clear, I think both of your are missing the point. my point is pretty simple.
A) Science supports the notion that what we observe in the material world/universe, tells us that everything that is made of matter requires a cause external to itself.
B) Ultimately, you get to the question of "matter" itself-- what caused "matter' to exist?
C) One can logically reason that "matter" needs a cause, and that cause can not be matter, based on item (A) above (matter can not cause matter to exist).
D) Whatever caused matter to exist is NOT made of matter (see (A))
My points were that:
a) Things exist that are made of matter
b) Things exist that are not made of matter (I cited some examples)
Perhaps "property of matter" was a wrong choice of words. Bottom line, "force" is not made of matter. It is the interaction between objects.
You say it is impossible for something to come from nothing. How can you be so sure? Does your mind, does the human capability, know the extent of what is capable within our universe and, dare I say, outside the realm of our universe (if such a thing exists).
I cited a few examples of things that not made of material. Dreams, thoughts, ideas. YOU (Type1) are the ones that are saying these are physical things. I say they are not. So if you say are physical things, then please provide physical attributes of a dream, thought, idea (how much does a dream weigh....what is the length and width of a dream, etc)
Bottom line:
- if you say "matter" has always existed, then that flies in the face of what we observe scientifically in the universe (i.e. all things have a beginning and an end).
- If you say "matter" has not always existed, then you have the additional question of what created "matter"?
If you say "matter" created "matter", then that flies in the face of what we observe scientifically (we do not observe things creating themselves into existence)
What is left?
The debate is about banning AR-15. The reasoning behind banning AR-15's is because they are considered dangerous...correct?
Go research how many people have actually been killed by AR-15's...
I do not support any gun regulations because I feel that doesn't address the issue. The issue is not the guns, the issue is the people. THe human heart. Getting rid of guns, stricter gun controls, etc doesn't get to the heart of the problem-- a person's desire to kill/injure another person. THAT, is the problem.
As long as Man (Woman) have the desire/propensity to harm/kill another person, do not remove my ability to defend myself (take away my guns).
Sorry...wasn't able to log on this weekend...work got in the way. I'll address your questions here:
Immaterial - means not made from matter...not having physical dimensions. Certain thigns exists that are not made of matter: ideas, dreams, concepts, etc. While yes, abstract things may have their root in the material, this does not mean or imply that they themselves are made of matter. Use the scientific method....tell me how wide a dream is...how muc it ways, etc. You can't, because dreams have no physical dimensions.
I'm not saying just because something exists outside our material university does not make it exempt from causality. By no means am I saying that. But if you don't have an Uncaused Cause, then by definition you would have a series of infinite causes, which in and of itself isn't logical
Consider: If you agree that A caused B, then consider this. Now without an Uncaused Cause, you are basically stating that there is an infinite number of Causes, stretchign back infinitely. But if that were the case, then Cause B would never be reached....why? Because you would have an infinite number (without number) of causes occurring before B would even B caused.....likewise A....likewise whatever caused A, ....it boggles the mind, but those are the implications. Logically, you just can't have a series of infinite causes.
Imagine an infinite number of dominoes lined up. Consider Domino X somewhere in the middle.....in order for Domino X to topple, the one before it would need topple...But in order for that one before it to topple, the one before IT would need topple...and so on....but if you avhe an infinite number of dominoes (i.e. causes), then you would never get to domino X....
Let's keep some perspective folks. AR-15's, while they certainly make for eye-catching headlines, are not the greatest danger.
In 2016, over 40K people were killed in vehicle accidents. While I don't know the exact stats, my gut tells me the number of people killed by AR-15's is MUCH MUCH LOWER (I say that facetiously).
In 2016, more people were killed by KNIVES than by AR-15s (according to the FBI).
While I respect the "March for our Lives" movement, etc the fact remains, a student is more likely to be killed in a vehicle ON THE WAY TO SCHOOL than they are by a school shooting....
The story of the rich young man and Jesus stating one cannot serve God and mammon (it was Jesus by the way, and not the Pope who first said it ;-) ) is teaching the idea of "do not make money your god". Scripture say money is evil. What does it say? Money is the ROOT of all evil. Big difference. it's the disordered love of money that is wrong. That is why Jesus says why it's hard for someone that is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven....why? because they often make money their "god" and lose focus of what is REALLY important.
Jesus knew what was in the rich young man's heart. Perhaps if the rich young man valued God way more than his possessions (money), God may not have said for him to give away everything. Jesus didn't tell Zaccheus to give his possessions.
Sure, GOd could make a realm where all people all go to Heaven. But that would require him to basically remove our free will. Let's return to the analogy of my son. What if instead I said, "Look, Son. YOu can not go out. I forbid you. I know what you need, and so I'm going to require you to stay here with me and get what you need." How happy do you think my son would be? Trust me, it's not fun lol.....I think we've all been in situations where we are "forced" to do what we don't want (even though it may be the best thing for us).
I think removing people's ability to choose is more in line with what a Stalin would do....
Parenthood is often a good analogy to the relationship of God with people (I"ve heard it said a man's relationship with God is a reflection of his relationship with his father).
I have a teenage son. Sometimes he doesn't have money. He usually wants to hang with his friends. Naturally, I want to spend time with him, so I'd rather he be with me and the family. Do I force him? Nope. On the weekends I usually cook out (smoke some brisket or pulled pork- it's what we do). But he wants to go out with his friends. Again, do I force him to stay with me? Nope. But I do tell him "Look son, if you stay here, you can eat all you want and have your fill. Heck, bring your friends along, too." But he'll choose to go out. Now, he doesn't have money, so he won't be eating when he goes out and he gets hungry. In fact, you may hear him lament that "he's starving". Would you accuse me of starving him, of causing him to suffer? I would hope not. He doesn't get what he needs (or wants) due to the choices he makes.
But then...what if he reconsiders and wants to return back home. He says "Wow, I could really eat good if I just go return home." Would I say "Nope, not gonna have it. Sorry, you can't come back." Nope. I would welcome him back with open arms and give him what he needs. That's exactly what God does. He shows/tells us the path. Whatever path we choose, God honors it. If we choose the right path, he lets us do what we want. If we choose the wrong path, he lets us do what we want. If we choose the wrong path, but later what to return to him, he welcomes us back. Something tells me Stalin would have not have been so kind lol.
I still think you have it wrong.
God doesn't PUT or SEND people to Hell. People go there of their own accord. Another analogy (albeit an imperfect analogy) would be this....imagine you want to go from San Antonio to El Paso. And really, those are the only two places you can go. And I tell you "Ok Alec, to get El Paso you want to go take I-10 West......That is the path that will get you to West. BUT PLEASE DO NOT TAKE I-10 EAST . I-10 EAST WILL NOT TAKE YOU TO EL PASO!! And please, don't be deterred by the fact that I-10 West is just lonely boring path...it's long, desolate and boring with nothing interesting along the way. But trust me, when you get there you will be rewarded." And yet, despite all best efforts to help you, guide you, and warn you, you get in your car, and you start driving down I-10 East. I'm not the one getting in the car, directing you....YOU are the one making these decisions to get in the car and go down the path.
Now you may offer all sorts of arguments....."Everybody is saying that if I take I-10 East I will get to El Paso...." or "Driving down I-10 East is so much more fun!".....I just shake my head and say "Yes, but that is not the path to El Paso."
Now let's relate this to God. What is Hell? Hell is the absence of God-- pure and simple. In simplest terms, that is how my faith defines Hell. People "suffer" because they choose not to be with Him. In effect, they are imposing the suffering on themselves.
You argument is flawed and I'm assuming by your statements you do not understand what the Church teaches about Free Will, following God, etc.
1. Your Stalin argument is flawed in it's comparison vs. God. Stalin FORCED people to do his will. God doesn't.
2. Where does God say we must sell everything and give away our possessions?
3. God does show us what Heaven and Hell are like. He explains it ot us in the Bible, through revelation, and through His Church.
You are on the right track though. The path is wide and easy that leads to destruction. More people will follow that path then the what that leads to Heaven.
A few questions for you
1. How do people end up in Hell?
2. Do people have a choice on where they end up?
Let me make sure I understand your position: You want the reward (heaven), but not want to have to do the work (live a good life), is that correct? That's sort of like saying, I want to get paid money, but I don't want to have to work for it. Sounds kinda selfish don't you think?
God doesn't "send people to heaven." God gives people a choice-- you can choose either Heaven or Hell. The choices you make in your life get you either closer to, and ultimately in, Heaven...or Hell.
It's like you're in the middle of nowhere....20 miles to the East is a lush oasis with everything you would ever want or need, you would have an abundant life.....20 miles to the West is a barren desert, with no food or water. The path to the East looks hard and difficult. But the path to the West looks fun!
However, God tells you "Travel East, my son. You'll have everything you ever want forever. But if you travel West, death and destruction await." If you choose to travel West, who's fault is it when you arrive and there is death and destruction? Not God's....YOURS.
Appreciate the comments. As noted earlier, I don't care about votes, etc. lol. I'm just here to engage in discussion and debate.
As noted elsewhere, I’m not here to “win” debates, garner votes, or win approval form others. I’m here to engage discussion.
I don’t adhere to the following formula:
a) Here are the rules/definitions of the debate (regardless of how outlandish they are)
b) If you agrees to the debate, you accept these rules/definitions
c) If you accept the debate, you agree to my definitions.
d) I can say what I want within the confines of my rules and definitions, can you cant counter because you agreed to the rules by accepting my definition.
e) Therefore I win
It’s pretty laughable actually. I think the only thing it accomplished was underscore the fact that the way he wins is by defining things his own way. Lol
Seems you have a misunderstanding of the Christian idea of hell. At least the Catholic belief of Hell, anyway. And I don't want ot assume that this is what your whole argument is based on then your whole argument falls....
Hell in short is the absence of God.
God basically says: "I want you to be with me. To be with me, you must obey my commandments-- it's your choice though. I will not force you."
God doesn't send us to hell, we choose to go there by the actions we commit in this life. That is what the Christian faith teaches about God (at least the Catholic faith anyway).
Imagine if you will a train station. At one end of the station is a train that says "To Heaven", and at the end of the other is a station that says "To Hell". If we choose to keep God's commandments and follow his ways, we are stepping foot on the train to heaven. If we choose to disobey his commandments and not follow his ways, we are stepping foot on the train to hell. So, in essence, our whole life is a series of choices, and depending on those choices we are stepping foot on/off either train. At death, our ability to choose is gone. Which ever train we are on when we die, that is where we are headed. God gives you what you want-- if you want to be with him (i.e. you obey his commandments), he'll grant your desire. If you want to not be with him (ie. you disobey his commandments), he gran that as well. He will always honor your free will choice.
TO paraphrase C.S. Lewis, there are those people who look God and say "Thy will be done", and there are those who look at him and say "My will be done." To both folks, God replies "Thy will be done."
I get it that you don't understand the concept that just because X is dependent on the physical, doesn't make X physical.
Physical thing is needed for a thought, but that doesn't mean the thought is physical. Again, yo usay it is, but you can't prove it.
Science can't measure, weigh, or take any physical dimensions of a thought-- because there are none. And you've yet to point to any science that says otherwise. lol.
I think you've said a lot in your arguments:
1. You believe in stuff not supported (even refuted) by science
2. you stretch definitions
Thanks for playin'. lol
No, I can't show you a thought that is not dependent on the physical. But I have no need to-- the fact that I can't show you a thought that is not contingent on the physical doesn't prove that a thought is physical.
That's like me saying "Show me a person that is not contingent on air. See that proves people are air!" Sorry. it just doeson't work that way.
I agree totally that thoughts, ideas, dreams are dependent (contingent) on the physical. But we all know just because something is dependent (contingent) on the physical doesn't mean it's the same nature/substance as that which it's dependent on.
Yep. It's basically saying is dependent upon lol.
X is contingent upon Y. Meaning, X exists only if Y is the case.
THis does not mean X is the same nature or substance of Y.
Dictionary didn't tell me I'm wrong. The dictionary you used simply bolstered my case. Simply because something is dependent on on something else, it doesn't mean that "that something" is physical, non-physical, etc.
Yet again, you're simply stretching a definition because you can't come to terms with the fact that non-physical, non-material things do indeed exist.
Contingent. Allow me to quote Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do think it means what you think it means.” LOL
Contingent means to be dependent on. Nothing more. If something, let’s call it “X”, is contingent upon something else, then that means it’s dependent upon it. If something, X, is dependent on a physical thing, that doesn’t necessarily mean that “X” is itself a physical thing. Dreams, thoughts, might be contingent on physical things, but that doesn’t mean they are themselves physical things. Any attempt to use contingent in this way is stretching the definition to fit what you want. I’m using the definition that is agreed upon by scholars.
Perhaps you can point to sources that use contingency the way you use it?
Again, the fact that you have to look to something else (i.e. brainwaves) instead of physically describing (scientifically observing) dreams/thoughts/ideas themselves makes it obvious—you are unable to physically describe idea/thought/dream because they have no physical dimensions. And why is that? Because they are not physical things.
Finally, just to reiterate, the question is not about whether something is contingent or not. The question is on whether or not non-physical things (things that are "im-material" or not made of amtter) exist or not.
I would argue everything we observe/experience is contingent (dependent upon) something else. I would challenge you to find one thing in this world (nay, the universe) that is not contingent on something else.
So your use of the word "contingent" is a red -herring, not relevant to whether or not something is physical (material) or non-physical (im-material).
Again, let me re-iterate-- are there things that exist that are not physical/material things? I believe you would agree that yes, there are things that exist that are not physical/material. Correct?
Again, the multi-tasking etc, doesn't say anything about the content of the thought My original comment was that Science has not been able to determine the content of a thought based on brainwaves. You posted the link as a counter to my statement-- but the counter doesn't work. What does the study show? At best it shows they can tell when a person is thinking. What does it not show? WHAT the person is thinking. Big difference. But you understand that, right? Science has yet to be able to analyze the brainwaves of a person and be able to say definitively "Yes, this person is thinking of a monkey juggling 4 bowling balls while riding a Harley Davidson". While the study in the article looks very interesting, and having the subjects multi-task was very interesting, does it say what they were thinking about as they did the tasks (pushing a button, talking, etc). I'm often thinking of different things while multi-tasking, and not necessarily the tasks at hand-- perhaps i'm thinking about that letter I forgot to mail....or the burrito i'm having for lunch......or the Spurs 2014 championship (their sweetest, in my opinion). So again, I stand firm on my point-- science has yet to say definitively the content of a thought simply by analyzing brainwaves.
Contingency doesn't determine whether or not something is physical or not. You understand that, right? Just because a thought is contingent on the brain, doesn't mean the thought is a physical thing-- it just means it depends on the brain. You understand that right?
I believe your last few sentences are you conceding that there indeed exists things that are not physical. While they are contingent (dependent) on physical things to exist, they are not physical things themselves. The fact that non-physical things exist is a very important point, and is the foundation for future arguments.
When one comes to terms that are there are indeed things that can not be measured/observed via science (because they are not physical or material), then one no longer has the platform of "It must be proved by science in order for me to believe it!" to stand on. And this seems to be the platform of many atheists.
Believe me, I was once one of them. lol.
You posted your link to that Berkeley article in response to my point about Science has not been able to determine the content of a thought based on brainwaves. why would you post that link then in response to my comment?
Wow-- you are really reading something into that activity. The section you highlight refer to auditory and visual cues...not thoughts. Can you point to the passage in that Berkeley article where it says they are able to detect types of thoughts? Interesting the only mention of the word thought in that whole article are in the title and in the sentence....that's it.
By length, i meant length as a physical measurement, not a measurement of time. I think you've painted yourself into a corner. You basically anot provide physical dimensions for something like "thought", "idea" or "concept". The reason you have to point to brainwaves is because there are no physical attributes of "thoughts" or "ideas", so you are forced to look at something that is the result (or perhaps cause) of thoughts and ideas.
Spacetime-- the jury is stil out on whether it's a physical thing or not. Physicists, the biggest brains in the field, can't even agree on it. So if Physicists can't even agree to it, far be it from me to assume it's true simply because anonymous blogger on a website says it's true. But hey, that's just me.
The bottom line is this-- you're struggling to admit that there are indeed things that exist that are not composed of matter-- that are not composed of physical substance. Things like ideas, thoughts, and concepts. Because science directly measures the physical, the fact these very real things do not have physical presence implies that they can not be measured by science. Sure, you can measure by-products, effects, etc, but you can't measure or observe via science these thoughts or ideas directly. in fact, the by-products or effects are in fact GREAT evidence (dare I say proof) that these non-physical entities exist.
Keep in mind, I'm asking you about the thought, not it's byproducts or contigencies....
Don't describe the brainwaves-- I'm not asking you to describe the brainwaves.
Nice try. It's a valiant attempt, but not successful. No where in that article did I find anything that hinted at science being able to tell what the content of a thought is by analyzing brainwaves. Simply put, science has not been able to say something like "This person is thinking of the Titanic" simply by analyzing brainwaves.
Ok. Let's discuss this further:
1. Can you tell me any physical attributes of an idea? Better yet, give me the physical dimensions of "idea" I'll help ya with some basics:
- what color is a thought?
- how much does a thought weigh?
- what is the length of a thought?
- what is the width of a thought ?
- what is the volume of a thought?
2. How much space does an idea or thought take up?
These are pretty basic things we learned in elementary science class when discussing physical objects.
**"Do you believe there are things that exist that do not have physical existence?"
I have no reason to believe that there are things that exist that do not have physical existence UNLESS they are contingent on the physical.
I have no reason to believe anything NOT CONTINGENT on the physical exists.**
Contingency is irrelevant to my question. It’s a simple yes/no question. I’m simply asking if you believe if there are things that exist that do not have physical existence. Answer it. Either you do or you don’t. Don’t dance around it with long-winded answers attempting to throw me off-base. It won’t work. Once I ask a question, I’m expecting an answer. I’m not asking you to explain why—if I want to know why, I will ask.
Based on your answers, I am assuming you would answer “YES” to this question. You are also adding on the clarifier/modifier indicating that these things are contingent on physical. So am I right in assuming you believe that non-physical things exist?
**Ok, so because the titanic is from the past and I know of it, it naturally must be in my memory, so to access the relevant facts associated with the titanic, I will need to activate my frontal lobe, and if my dopamine levels are where they need to be for me to accurately be able to communicate that memory from the frontal lobe to my language acquisition device, I can verbally indicate that I can recall images, books, and even movies I've seen that contain those relevant facts about the titanic.
This thought is a construct of the processes my brain and neurons go through with respects to that particular memory.**
Quit dancing around the question. The content of the thought is irrelevant (the contect of the thought could be anything—the Titanic…Jimi Hendrix…..Mother Theresa….Garfield the Cat…Lasagna). I’’m not asking you to provide details about the content of the thought. I’m asking you to provide the details, in physical terms, of “thought”.
Since each thought is contingent on the brain activities and neurotransmitter balance, types of thoughts exclusively associated with particular brain activity and particular neurotransmitters can be measured, and so you can accurately predict the types of thoughts someone is thinking by measuring the physical source from which the thought is an emergent construct.
This is not based on science. Sorry. You’re wrong. Science has not been able to determine the content of a thought based on brainwaves. Science at best says because of the brainwaves, this COULD BE a thougNice try. If you are so sure, perhaps you can point to the specific scientific research that proves this.
Well, are there any surfers that don't make footprints in the sand?
If it's the case that all surfers make footprints in the sand, then we could find a standard surfer footprint and more reasonably conclude the surfer's physical attributes from the series of footprints given the depth of each print, the incline there within, and the shape and size of the imprint from each part of the surfer's foot from their push-off while walking.
I could give you an estimate on height, weight, speed, gait, and overall body shape of the surfer that just walked or ran out to the ocean to surf from a standard of surfers' footprints and the measurement of the series of footprints in the sand.**
True. But you are not using science to provide attribute of the surfer. Science would be actually giving the physical dimensions on what you are observing about him. Taking weights, measuring height, providing observable features from the surfer itself. If you are basing your physical attributes on the footprint, you’re basically taking a guess (your best guess based on reasoning), not using science measure. You’re providing a theory that the object that made the footprint COULD BE a surfer, yay high, weighing x number of pounds etc. But it’s a theory, not a fact. Big difference.
Where does it say in the Bible that most people will burn in hell forever?
The flaws with the "God cannot be Omni-Benevolent" argument is multi-fold:
Flaw 1.The person who states this is basically elevating themselves to the level of God and saying "I perceive and interpret things and events as God sees them". They operate on the assumption that how they see events (good, bad, very good, very bad, etc) is exactly how God would see it. I honestly think that's the height of arrogance-- to presume one see things as a potential All-Power being would...They think of the most dastardly, heinous crime they can think of, and then say "How can a benevolent God let this happen". THese sort of arguments insert an element of emotion into it. Rather than do that, it's best to think of things as either "good" or "bad". The argument then is, if a benevolent GOd is really good, why do bad things happen. But again, the person asking the question is assuming God sees things as they would.
Flaw 2. The person stating this argument is skipping a question that is not often asked. Might there be a reason to allow something bad to happen? As was mentioned, it's been said God allows bad things to happen to bring about a greater good. A young toddler might perceive the hypodermic needle about to pierce his skin as the worst thing imaginable. He might be screaming and yelling at his mom and the doctor because he feels it's terribly painful. What he doesn't understand (perceive) is the greater good (prevention of disease) that will come from such an act.
One can ask "Well what good could possibly come from allow ____________ to happen?" It's a great question. But just because you don't know or understand or even have the ability to perceive a greater good, doesn't mean there is no greater good that could come from it.
So you are proposing arguments something you don't necessarily believe in? Wow. Not quite sure I have ever heard that in a debate. If you don't believe in something, why are you posing it as justification for a certain position? Anyway...
When people say that Free Will can not exist with an Omniscient God (something that sees/knows everything), there are some flaws in that.
First, the proponent of that argument is making the assumption that God is "bound by time", in other words, God experiences (sees) things as we humans would. One could be really critical and say the proponent is elevating himself to God's status by saying he/she sees/experiences time the same way as God. If this being, God, is not bound by time (which most Theists believe), then God doesn't experience the past, present or future they way we do. Ever walk into a sports bar? The typical sports bar has 10+ TVs in them, all playing different games/events. A simple analogy would be imagine a sports bar with 3 TVs, and on TV 1 is the past, on TV 2 is the present, and on TV 3 is the future. God is able to watch simultaneously all 3 events in what has been described as the "Eternal Now." God's not predicting or forcing Joe to wear a red shirt next Thursday. God knows he will wear a red shirt, because from God's perspective, it's already happened and God saw it.
Granted it's an imperfect analogy, but when trying to relate to God, we are limited by our human capabilities. Now the atheist might say "Well, PROVE God is not bound by time!". That's a debate we can have....
2. "Things either physically exist or exist contingent on the physical."
Sorry, you're not answering the question. Let me repeat the question. What I asked is "Do you believe there are things that exist that do not have physical existence?"
I'm not asking if there are things that exist that depend on other physical things. I know that-- we this all around us (You and I both depend, are contingent on, physical things like food and water).
What I want to know is, do YOU believe there things that exist that do not have physical existence?
4. Regarding free will, thanks for your input. Would you agree though that you do have the free will to do what is possible? For example, you have the free will to stroll across the street, but you do not have the free will to jump to the moon, because...well, that is simply not possible.
5. Closed systems
I'm sorry. Who's definition of closed system are you using-- is that your own? Everything I learned in Thermodynamics states that within a closed system, energy is indeed exchanged in/out of the system, but not matter. Whereas in an open system, matter as well as energy is exchanged in/out of the system. DO you wish to go with this definition, or would you rather stick to yours? I’m good either way, but I do question where your definition came from, since it goes counter to what I learned in my engineering science classes.
Nonetheless, related to “open” systems, you said it is possible for something to last forever. Can you please provide an example and/or explain how you came to this conclusion?
1. **No.
If I think of a purple and orange striped mammal bird, this is not physical, it's a construct that I created with my physical brains/neurons.**
But here's the deal, since isn't measuring/observing the thought itself, is it? It's observing the activity of your brains/neurons. If I were to ask you to go give me the physical attributes, to observe/measure scientifically, that surfer over there, you wouldn't go to his footprints in the sand and begin to describe the footprints. If you did, I would say "no no no, describe the surfer for me, not these markings in the sand. For all I know, these markings in the sand may not have even been caused by that surfer dude."
While science can measure brainwaves, it doesn't guarantee or prove these are your thoughts.
I want you to describe for me, in physical terms, your thoughts. Here's a simple experiment to illustrate what I"m asking you. Imagine I gave you a black and white photo of the Titanic. And then I ask you, describe the picture for me. If you responded "well it's a 46,000 ton ship with 4 red and black smoke stacks." I'd say "no no no. You are describing for me the content of the picture. I want you to describe for me the picture itself, hopefully, you'd be able to say "Ohhhh, well...it's 4x6 inches....it's black and white.....it's less than a millimeter thick....it weighs very little, I don't know how much but we can measure it's weight if you'd like". Now, instead of the picture of the titanic, i want you to have an idea or thought of the titanic.
Describe for me in physical terms this thought.
1. **No.
If I think of a purple and orange striped mammal bird, this is not physical, it's a construct that I created with my physical brains/neurons.**
But here's the deal, since isn't measuring/observing the thought itself, is it? It's observing the activity of your brains/neurons. If I were to ask you to go give me the physical attributes, to observe/measure scientifically, that surfer over there, you wouldn't go to his footprints in the sand and begin to describe the footprints. If you did, I would say "no no no, describe the surfer for me, not these markings in the sand. For all I know, these markings in the sand may not have even been caused by that surfer dude."
While science can measure brainwaves, it doesn't guarantee or prove these are your thoughts.
I want you to describe for me, in physical terms, your thoughts. Here's a simple experiment to illustrate what I"m asking you. Imagine I gave you a black and white photo of the Titanic. And then I ask you, describe the picture for me. If you responded "well it's a 46,000 ton ship with 4 red and black smoke stacks." I'd say "no no no. You are describing for me the content of the picture. I want you to describe for me the picture itself, hopefully, you'd be able to say "Ohhhh, well...it's 4x6 inches....it's black and white.....it's less than a millimeter thick....it weighs very little, I don't know how much but we can measure it's weight if you'd like". Now, instead of the picture of the titanic, i want you to have an idea or thought of the titanic.
Describe for me in physical terms this thought.
By the way, you didn't really answer question #3. You responded by saying "It's an existence that follows the laws of physics. It can do everything within its nature of physics."
I wasn't talking about physics, I was talking about logic. The question wasn't about physics, it was about logic. I'll repeat the question (and so that you are not distracted by words, I'll won't use the word "someone"):
When you speak of "God", would you consider "God" as a being that must follow the rules of logic? In other words, do you perceive this God (or the theist's View of God) as a being that can even do the illogical, such as make a square circle?"
Awesome. Thanks for your responses.
1. How does science measure that which is contingent on the physical? Isn't the contingent still physical, so while science is measuring that which is contingent on the physical, isn't it still measuring the physical? Or....are you implying that science measures (or can measure) that which is not physical?
2. I'm curious-- why do you think that if God is to exist, it must be a physical being? Or if you don't believe in God, is it your believe that others (theists) believe God to be a physical being? This actually prompts a sub-question: Do you believe there are things that exist that do not have physical existence?
3. Good point. it doesn't have to be "someone". Let's just call it "Thing", so as not to be distracted by terms. Why do you believe that this Thing (God) must follow the laws of physics?
4. Unbounded Free Will-- what exactly do you mean by that? My idea of Free Will is the ability to do that which is indeed possible, and logical, to do. In other words, I don't believe the argument someone may have such as "I wan to jump to the moon, but I can't....see, I don't have free will! So free will doesn't exist!". Is that your understanding of Free Will? Better yet, just explain what you mean by "unbounded free will", and perhaps it's complement "bounded free will."
5. What do you mean by an "open system" and a "closed system"? Can you explain what a closed system is and what an open system is, in your opinion? Perhaps giving examples of each would be great, too.
To answer your question, and it's a good one, yes-- I believe it's possible for something to have a beginning AND last forever (this prompts other questions, but I will save those for later).
Just answer the questions. They are actually quite simple questions, just answer yes or no.
Honestly, there are somethings I just don't care about:
1. Who I'm debating. It's irrelevant. I'm here to debate and argue my position. I'll ask questions to better understand the oppositions point of view, and I will try to keep these are "yes / no' questions, but may deviate.
2. Votes. Again, it's irrelevant. I'm not here to win favor or see how many votes I get. I'm just here to debate.
3. I don't care what Joe, Jill Jane or whoever thinks . When I'm in a debate, what matters is what the opposition thinks.
4. Punctuation or grammar. It's a distraction. If the only thing the opposition can argue is that I misspelled a word or left off a comma or left out an apostrophe, then that's a distraction.
So, answer the questions.
If I know Joe is going to wear a red shirt tomorrow, that doesn't effect Joe's ability to change his mind and wear a blue shirt, does it?
**Yet, omniscience is necessarily in conflict with human free will. If God is all-knowing, he'd know I was about to write "fart gun" before I wrote it. However, what if at the last second I chose to write "bumblebee larvae" instead? **
Um, wouldn't omniscience also mean he would know you'd change your mind at the last second to write bumblebee larvae? Or are you asserting that you would have the ability to outwit an omniscient being? Imagine if you will God watching you, nudging his buddies and saying "Watch this....bsh1 is about to write "fart gun" but at the last minute he's going to change his mind and write "bumblebee larvae" instead.....it's hilarious!". I jest (God, wouldn't have buddies to nudge lol). But you get my point. Why do you assume that simply because you change your mind at the last minute, God would not know that?
Um, I re-read what you wrote in the debate-- I do not see your answers there. Please tell me you're not already starting this debate off with a false statement....it's too soon. lol.
** Similarly, we recognize that the moral agency of someone with a gun to their head is reduced because their freedom of choice is impinged. For morality to matter at all, therefore, we must have free will. To the extent that Pro hypes objective morals, he ought to agree with this conclusion.**
True, but even the guy with the gun to his head still has the free will to choose to either do or not do something. We here stories every day of folks who summon the internal courage and fortitude to be strong despite being faced with death.
I humbly accept your challenge. I do have a few questions though, because it's not evident from your "definitions". These are all just simple yes/no questions-- no need to point me to other people, other articles or websites, or bring up other arguments not related to the question. Just a simple "yes" or "no" will do.
1. Do you believe that science measures/observes only the physical-- i.e. those things that have physical attributes?
2. When you speak of "God", are you speaking of an entity/being that has a physical existence (i.e. physical attributes that can observed via the scientific method)?
3.. When you speak of "God", would you consider "God" as a being that must follow the rules of logic? In other words, do you perceive this God (or the theist's View of God) as someone that can even do the illogical, such as make a square circle? Again, just another simple yes/no response.
4. Do you believe in Free Will? Again, a simple yes/no response. I'm not asking you if both Man's Free-Will and God's Omni-Benevolence can co-exist. I'm simply asking, do you believe in free will-- i.e. do you have the ability to choose what you think, say, do, type (even on a debate website)?
One last question, I promise...well, for now, anyway:
5. Do you believe that physical/material things can last indefinitely (i.e. forever)? Please keep in mind the distinction between "very long time" and "forever". Forever means without end-- no beginning, no end. always was and always will be. People often confuse the two. Hell, I often do....I tell people "Tim Duncan played for the Spurs forever". But what I mean is, he played for them for a really long time.
I look forward to your responses.
For the record, I'm not here to garner votes, etc. So I really don't care about votes, how people vote, etc. I basically fast-forwarded to your definition section....lol.... I'm here cuz I love a good debate.
Sorry, i'm not being difficult or avoiding your questioning. I'm actually trying to make sure I understand your questions. And I will also be asking more questions-- I don't like to assume, so I usually like to ask the opposition so I am sure what they intend.
I'm sorry. I'm actually going to have to ask you to clarify and explain your questions a bit more before I attempt to answer:
1) What is gravity?
2) What is air resistance?
It may sound trivial and elementary, but it's the basis for your questioning. So i want to make sure you and I are both on the same page when it comes to "gravity" and "air resistance".