The Durupinar Noah's Ark Site

Discussion in 'Religion' started by SetiAlpha6, Jul 12, 2021.

  1. candy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    An omnipotent or a preordination belief would preclude total free will.
    A belief in an omniscient consciousness does not because an omniscient could know the outcome of all possible choices without denying you the free will to choose whichever you want.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That affects freedom of will only if one requires that such freedom be supernatural - that one can be free only by defying physical law. Otherwise it's irrelevant.

    Abandonment of the supernatural simply brings recognition of all the degrees of freedom that emerge from the substrates of physical reality. Predestination, for example, simply predestines the emergence and operation of human will with all its degrees of freedom - quite different from those available to falling dominoes. You would be predestined to make choices and perform other behaviors according to your will.

    Throw in the fact that according to the latest physics (and chemistry, biology, mathematics, etc) nothing in the universe is predestined - everything is a matter of greater and lesser probabilities in combination - and the matter becomes even more clear: substrates do not cause patterns, humans making willed choices from among possibilities are part of the universe, and so forth.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,635
    There is no evidence. Noah's ark is a myth with no evidence to support it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Perhaps Quantum Mechanics operates at the very threshold of the Supernatural or has Supernatural entanglements. Super Newtonian!
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,774
    We've covered that. None of the dozen or so "this time it's real" discoveries of Noah's Ark have panned out.

    It's like hearing the latest end of the world prediction. By the way, some are coming up real soon!

    F. Kenton Beshore predicted that Jesus will return between 2018 and 2028, since he believes that the Rapture is predicted to happen within one generation of the founding of Israel in 1948. (I know what you are going to say - that a Biblical generation is 40 years. But Beshore has proof that it's really 70-80 years.)

    Messiah Foundation International predicts that the world will end in 2026, when an asteroid collides with Earth in accordance with Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi's predictions in his book The Religion of God.

    Kent Hovind predicts the world will end in 2028, which is the "most likely" date for the rapture.

    So Noah's Ark sort of pales in comparison to the upcoming End of Times.
     
  9. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Ok...

    Please prove your claim that there is no evidence.
    And please prove Noah’s Ark is a myth.

    You made two claims, now go ahead and please prove them!

    There is a lot of evidence for God’s presence on this Earth, and at least some for Noah’s Ark, but would you accept any evidence?

    I am financially supporting further research at the Noah’s Ark Site to see if more evidence can be found. The government of Turkey is also involved, but not with me personally. I’m nobody.

    It would be presumptuous for me or for anyone else to say that there is absolutely no evidence for Noah’s Ark in existence. Because no one on Earth actually knows that.

    Naturalism, of course, is an unproven faith, and folks who hold it dogmatically, as their Religion, tend to get angry when it is questioned.

    Because their worldview is being threatened by the evidence.

    Naturalism is both unprovable and unfalsifiable, which, as you know, makes it a very weak and unscientific affair, especially to hold onto dogmatically.

    It doesn’t usually go well.

    They can also appear, not always at first, but eventually to be extremely arrogant. Just something I have noticed over the years.

    Boy Howdy! Theists can also be extremely arrogant, and so much more ugliness, as, I am sure you will agree!!! They can be really scary!!!

    Hopefully everyone here will be above such childish behaviors.

    But, since you are not like that, what would you except as evidence for Noah’s Ark and for the Global Flood?

    And again, hopefully this is not you, but so many times I have shown Atheists evidence, only to have them, react with something like...

    “There is no evidence because there can’t be any evidence because I don’t want there to be any evidence. Basically because I want to have sex whenever and however I want to.”

    That has to be about the most unscientific approach imaginable.

    It actually happens quite a lot. Very, very sad!

    But not you, right?
    You would accept reasonable evidence, right?

    If so, what kind of evidence would you accept?

    (Sorry, I was kind of ranting and rambling there a bit.... Bad Seti, Bad!!!)
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2021
  10. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Yes, Yes, Absolutely lots of crazy stuff going on out there in the Christian World!!! You are right!!!

    But, it is so comforting that the Scientific World would never think of creating or embracing evolutionary hoaxes, to manipulate millions of people.

    Wait, that actually happened, over and over again!

    (Don’t look at that man or monkey behind the curtain!)

    I could list some of them if you like.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2021
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,774
    Agreed.
     
  12. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Hahaha!

    You can be funny sometimes!

    Good One!
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,774
    If the omniscient consciousness does not know what you will choose to do, it is not omniscient. By definition.
     
  14. candy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    No. Omniscient is total awareness of what is. It is not precognition.
     
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,811
    Omniscience is literally "to know all" - which would thus include that which has not yet come to pass. It is not just awareness of what is, but includes prescience.
     
  16. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,635
    Kent Hovind is a delusional moron.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,774
    Psalm 139:1-4: "O Lord, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether."

    The Bible disagrees.
     
    Sarkus likes this.
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,774
    Definitely. So are most of the Noah's Ark people.
     
  19. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Please provide a direct causality link between...

    1) God has foreknowledge something will happen.

    and

    2) God caused that thing to happen.

    (How does simply knowing something will happen because of a free will choice), directly cause it to happen without that free will choice?

    What is the causality link?

    Without proof of necessary direct causality your argument must be discarded.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2021
  20. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,419
    Are you questioning if God has free will?
     
  21. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    No.

    Just questioning the logic of arguments made in this thread.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,774
    There is no such link.
    It does not. God does not CAUSE you to say something, he simply knows exactly what you will say in the future. Thus, you are not free to say something else. Simple.
     
  23. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,123
    There's confusion here: "knowing something will happen because of a free will choice" assumes the existence of free will.
    The point being argued by Billvon is that if there is an omniscient entity then there is no free will, so no "free will choice", for reasons he has explained.

    If someone knows how future events will play out (e.g. omniscience) then those events must be fixed in the future.
    If they are so fixed then there is no ability to change them.
    If there is no ability to change them then there is no freedom from that chain of events.
    Any "freewill" one has would only be an illusion.

    That is the argument, at least.

    However, if one considers the notion of freewill that is merely the description of a process by which we, say, filter perceived possible alternatives down to the end action (i.e. "choice") then that process (aka freewill) exists even if someone else knows the outcome of that process before we ourselves do.
    And in that case "freewill" exists irrespective of an omniscient entity.
    As long as the process is carried out unhindered from its normal working parameters, then such "freewill" exists, even if the ultimate action taken, the "choice", is known / determined long beforehand.

    To others, however, in the presence of an omniscient entity (or anything else that fixes the future result) this notion of freewill merely has the illusion (to the one carrying out the process) of being free, and that there is no actual freedom in it.
    So even if the person carrying out the process believes they have alternatives, and believe they are implementing their "freewill", because of the fixed result it is clear that the initial alternatives not ultimately selected were not in fact genuine alternatives but only perceived to be such.
    And all of the freedom within such "freewill" becomes illusory (i.e. perception compared to reality).
    Hence they talk about the "illusion of freewill".

    Or so the argument goes.

    But there are other threads for this, so I'd suggest you take it there rather than continue it here, where it is clearly off-topic.
     

Share This Page