"proof that the christian god can't exist, debunked"

Suppose this is so. What are the implications of this "you not being you", "being a mechanism following a programme"?
Do you have a problem with "you not being you", with "being a mechanism following a programme"?
Is there something you don't like about "you not being you", "being a mechanism following a programme"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think he has a problem with being a mechanism. If he is then he is, there's not much you can do about it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Strange you latch onto the final line of my last post and ignore(?) the rest:
We were set up from the start to have wars, murderers, rapists, torturers etc.

As for your questions, they aren't relevant to the topic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So people do not have problems with things they cannot change?

 

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Not that it woud make any diference to the argument... ”

What does make a diference to the argument is that the all-knowin God is suposed to be fare an just an yet he created humans who have no choise but to sin... an mos of 'em will wind up bein tortured for eternity.!!!

If you inturpet the bible in such a way that gives mor than 1 life... it dont mater... that was also pre-determined by God... an that estra life jus slightly delays the onset of eternal hell for those who God pre-destined to go to hell.!!!

“ but what does the Christan Bible posit other than "one life to live".??? ”

So indeed... its irrelevent to the arument like i said... i only ask cause i was qurious about you'r (mor than 1 life) inturpitaton.!!!

 

PsychoticEpisode,

It was the will of the person who made the decision, under the laws
which governed that place at that time.

Not necessarily to a believer.

It was a figure of speech.
Create an idea of God, make up a paradox, then accept the paradox as un-challengable.

Rational people are rational because they think sensibly and clearly, and do not need to advertise their position.
Another trait is that they are able to reason nicely.

What would convince you that omniscience and free will could co-exist?

 

Then it was not predetermined? Is this one instance where God didn't know the result of His action? You know that won't wash.

Man's free will decided Christ's fate? We chose to kill Christ even though that is what God engineered to happen. Sorry, can't have both.

I just said I don't think Dyw has a problem with it. He is one person, I'm not talking about the entire world. I expect better from you Doreen.

 

Thank you.

You shifted to the second person, that implies something more universal.

Unless you meant Signal couldn't do anything about it, but that would be odd.

But OK, you just meant him, anyway. Note again. I asked a question. You tend to respond to my questions or statements in the subjunctive as if I was asserting a fact.

 

Yes, there were prior posts between the two on the subject. I was only interjecting. Sorry about the backhanded compliment, I understand how you misunderstood.

 

2 questions;

what do mean God engineered Christ' murder to happen?

And have you heard the story of scorpion who convinced a turtle (i think) to carry him across the river on his back?

jan.

 

So? What is your point?

Why not?

 

You seem to be very sure that there is such a thing as eternal hellfire.
What makes you so sure of that?

 

The point would be as previously stated: we were set up and started with the knowledge that wars &c would be our lot.
Back to the sadistic puppet-master accusation.
If omniscience exists then all we are is clockwork toys playing the script out for the amusement and edification of god.

I'm sorry, but I fail entirely to see what my personal feelings have to do with the question of "were we predestined or not?".
How, exactly, do my feelings affect the question (or the facts [whatever the facts are], or the logic) one way or the other?

 

But it is allright if modern science tells us that we are ruled by our genes, or that we are basically nothing but bio-chemical reactions or something to that effect?

You don't think that the theist-atheist debate and its conclusions have something personally to do with you, with how you live your daily life?

 

Does any of that remove the possibility of free will?
Omniscience does...
Regardless, even if we were entirely slaves to our genes and bio-chemical reactions then we're doing what we do because it's how it turned out: not because we made to do so by "a loving god".

Nice try, but that's not what's under discussion here is it?
I repeat: what possible bearing could my feelings have on the conclusion that I was made to be what I am? Whatever I feel is what I was intended to feel... and doesn't alter the fact that it boots nothing in the end. Does it matter if computer programme simulates anger when it was written to do so? Or expresses "joy" if that's how it was coded?

 

in this good example, does what you choose make a difference?
does the (illusionary) choice exist? does it affect the outcome in any way?

meaning, here if you choose right it's prize, if you choose left it's prize.
with god, if you're going to take prize you choose prize.
i find it a bit different.
in one the choice is meaningless, in the other the choice is everything, it's the "medium" of knowledge becoming (being) true.
:scratchin:
but you were right about the objective-subjective combination, i'm just not seeing it apply to our matter.

 

What paart of that (if any) do you disagree wit.???

What paart of that (if any) do you disagree wit.???

I dont have beleifs that hellfire esists... eternal or not.!!!

Do you define the Holey-Bible God in such a way that he can esist... which debunks the argument of this thred (that God cant esist)... an if so... state what it is.???

 

Can you not read?

The choice is subjective only: whichever door you pick you end up in exactly the same position: with only one possible outcome.

Then try thinking.

 

ok, D's in a bad mood today..

you sure that's a question you put in writing?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

didn't you put that example to show me that choice is not only subjective?

there's a difference between a choice that makes a difference in the outcome and another that does not.
even if the choice(the final one) is fixed.

in the matter we are discussing, what you choose decides (affects) what you end up with, in your example, what you choose makes no difference. even though in both cases the final result cannot be changed;
one preordained result is reached by you choosing.
the other preordained result is reached independent of your choice.

i think it sums things up quite nicely.
and have a cuppa tea with a spo' a-milk before you reply eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Pray you never get me in a bad mood.

Positive: witnessed by the fact that I did.

That example was what you asked for: a subjective choice that is objectively no choice.

What's your point? I was illustrating a case where someone thinks he has a choice when in reality he doesn't.

Wrong again. I gave an illustration of subjective choice/ objective no choice.

I don't drink tea.