Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
If any event can change or effect your mind in any way then your mind is subject to cause and effect. If touching a stove, purposefully or accidentally with full foreknowledge of the consequences or in ignorance, can change the way your mind views stoves and the caution you exercise in regards to stoves then your mind is subject to cause and effect. Is this the case or does toich8ng a stove have no effect on your mental state whatsoever?
How specific do I have to be? I even came up with a very specific example.
When you were a child you likely did touch something hot and it likely burned your childish little fingers. Did this alter your behavior and your cognizant awareness of hot objects? The answer you are looking for is almost certainly yes but if you have really never experienced this I will try to come up with a different specific example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@eash
Again and hopefully for the last time (though I can remind you again if you forget) the bible is the claim not the evidence. You must demonstrate that the bible is a good authority on reality before I am able to accept it as a good authority on reality. Also I have not made any claims, I just do not accept your claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
We are talking about whether your mind is subject to cause and effect. Will is not really associated with that question though depending on the way the conversation goes we may get into that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
No, the Bible gives specific prophecy. Take Daniel 9:24-27. That is very specific. Only 490 years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem is given for Daniel's people. God will judge them for their transgression and sin and bring in everlasting righteousness within that time frame. That happened. History shows that after the Babylonian exile and after the destruction of the city and temple by King Nebuchadnezzar. God told Daniel that He had given Daniel's people 490 years for the six conditions of Daniel 9:24 to be met. The end of the Mosaic Covenant would come with the once again destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. We know this happened in AD 70. History backs up the prophecy.
So the bible both claims to have predicted somethimgband to have fulfilled it. Congratulations now you have a burden of proof for both the prophecy and the fulfilment of the prophecy.
As opposed to your claims
I have not made any claims we are still discussing your claims.
Again, the burden of proof becomes impossible for me to establish because by your authority you will never accept what I have to say or what the Bible says.
The bible is the claim not the evidence. I'm sorry if this is an inconvenience for you but in a rational debate the burden of proof is on the claimant not the one rejecting the claim.
How would you ever believe what God says if you do not believe He exists.
Why would I ever believe something exists that cannot be demonstrated to exist? If you can demonstrate Yahweh then I will have no choice but to accept that Yahweh exists. I am simply unable to maintain a belief in the absence of evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
A being that is self-existent. He does not depend on another being or anything else for His existence. Gods are human designed. God is not.
Even if Yahweh does actually exist that still leaves thousands of god concepts that are merely the invention of humans. How have you determined that this one god among all gods is the creator of man rather than the creation of man? Do you have any objective proof that the universe did not come into being on its own? Or always existed? Or was created by a flying spaghetti monster on a bender? Because I have no reason to accept your claims until you demonstrate them.
You never answered my question. How do you come up with right and wrong without God?
How do you come up with right and wrong with some god(s)? It still comes down to a subjective opinion it just become some god(s) subjective opinion. On what standard is you god(s) basing moral judgements? This becomes especially problematic if the hypothetical being in question cannot be demonstrated to be existent. Again what do you do if your god(s) endorse slavery or genocide or infanticide or execution for seemingly minor infractions? Do these things then become moral?
Just so we are clear morality is entirely subjective and humans generally accept moral codes that promote human wellbeing and societal good and it's not hard to see why since such codes tend to benefit humans. Of course once we agree on a subjective standard we can make objective statements about morality based on that standard.
My preferred subjective standard is what promotes human wellbeing followed by wellbeing in general. Since the bible makes a number of seemingly arbitrary judgements that conflict with human wellbeing I do not consider it a good moral guide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I can't help it ever since you posted gnome alone a while back.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Ok. Coffee btw, though if I'm drinking tea I rather enjoy lady gray.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I often use a preference for coffee or tea to illustrate my beliefs on the subject of freewill. Just wondering if that had anything to do with this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
(Macaulay Culkin it is then. With a pointy red hat cuz gnomes gotta have the David the gnome hat.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
One burden of proof is prophecy
A prophecy must be specific and confined to a narrow time frame in order to be impressive otherwise it is no different than a conman giving a psychic performance (otherwise known as a cold reading) the bible gives very vague prophecy with open ended time frames and some of the prophecies are predicted and fulfilled in the bible which means that both the prophecy and the fulfilment are merely claims and again require a burden of proof.
As for your "proof" that your god(s) takes unborn babies to a better place they are just the claims included in the bible. The claims are not the proof. Can you demonstrate the veracity of these passages? Do you have any evidence beyond anecdotal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Top image is how I picture her. Maybe the picture will help. Have you got a Snerp image? Because I've just been picturing eight year old Macaulay Culkin with a beard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Duds hypothesis. This will not qualify as a theory without more rigorous testing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
(Maybe even saved her from a lynch mob. Like I said she was a child soldier, she can't be more than sixteen or seventeen now. Kind of naive.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@eash
Perhaps its because there is no way to test the experience scientifically (because there is no objective difference between what you describe and a halucination).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I don't know about the rest but I figured Snerp was just the first non orc that gave Eikka a chance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@eash
In that case when are you collecting your million dollars from the amazing randy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
(I'm a cleric, I already have a deity in my corner.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
(I don't know but dm fiat is dm fiat. Like I said Snerp just about has Eikka convinced but that doesn't mean it might not turn out to be something we regret. Of course killing him could turn out to be something we regret too.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
(Actually the worst case scenario is that he gets free despite our best efforts and kills every man woman and child in this village.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@eash
What is the objective difference between this experience and an hallucination or lucid dream?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
(Snerp just about has Eikka convinced but that doesn't change the fact that no matter what we do we are still just hoping for the best. If Drafterman decides it's appropriate to his story then Strahd will find him and free him. Heck even if we subject him to final death Strahd surely has other thralls.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Are you willing to look outside the veil of the physical world
Is there a reliable repeatable method of accomplishing This? Perhaps one which can be observed and subjected to rigorous scientific testing?
Created:
Posted in:
I bet you ten money that money is an abstract concept rather than a real thing with intrinsic value of its own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
He is a necessary Being
What is a necessary being exactly? What makes any god(s) necessary?
How do you come up with right and wrong without God? It just becomes your opinion versus my opinion. What makes that right or good? Nothing.
Assuming any god(s) exist what makes some god(s) notion of right and wrong more than just some god(s) opinion? Isn't that just the argument that might makes right? What if the hypothetical god(s) in question specifically endorse behavior that you find morally reprehensible (slavery for example)? If your god(s) endorse slavery does that make slavery morally correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
(Yeah I suppose that's true but nothing is actually stopping him.)
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I think you will find, and this is purely coincidence I'm sure, that every theist would be happy to pick their religion for you but that none would ever pick a different religion for tou.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@eash
visit the abyss
Is there a reliable repeatable method of accomplishing this? Perhaps one which can be subjected to rigorous scientific testing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
This is a claim. Can you meet the burden of proof for this claim or shall we dismiss it?If God ever takes an innocent human life (i.e., the unborn or a little child), He will restore that life to a better place - His presence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
before Strahd did some bullshit
(And what's to stop Strahd from doing it again while we are off looking for a cure?)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
It doesn't matter why it happened it is still an event. Does accidentally touching a stove not effect your mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Touching a stove is something that happens in real time in the observable physical universe. That qualifies for the definition I have presented. It doesn't matter why you did so. It's only an example in any case. Everything that has ever happened to you is an event. Are you seriously claiming that you have never changed your mind because of something that happened to you?
Btw I am not trying to put words in your mouth I'm just trying to understand the words that you have presented me with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Presumably out of ignorance but either is an event and if either causes a change in attitude or brain states then I'm not sure how you can claim that the mind is unaffected by said event.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The Bible throughout claims
Claims obligate the claimant to a burden of proof (At least in a rational debate) is there any evidence beyond anecdotal to support the claims of the bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Touching a stove is an event if that changes your mind then events do effect your mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Just so we are on the same page you acknowledge that your mind is effected by events?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@eash
the text in the bible lets us know
I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there. The bible is the claim not the evidence and unless you can demonstrate that it is more than a work of fiction/mythology it doesn't matter what the bible tells us.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Imagine if God's didn't do the make a book thing.
Let's go a step further. Let us imagine that all human knowledge is erased. Science, math, medicine, agriculture and theology all gone. We are Hunter gatherers again. Now imagine that ten thousand years goes by. Now math science math medicine and agriculture have been rediscovered and because science and math are objective observable truths we have come to the same conclusions (2+2=4, gravity is both a weak and strong force etc) but theology is practiced in many forms and seems subjective to the values of the society which practices it.
Now considering all that how likely do you think it would be that any religion would reappear in this new world which was identical to any religion practiced today or even resembling one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@eash
As I said this is subjective. In comparison with modern first world countries the Hebrews were savages. Compared with the Hebrews aboriginal societies and Neolithic peoples were savages. In any case the use of execution as a punishment for minor infractions is a savage practice and any society that does so is a savage nation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I my ask rose ends when I next converse with him but even if you are right that only resolves one of the issues that I brought up. By the way I consider any society that uses execution as a punishment for minor infractions savage and the bible was I believe written in the iron age.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@eash
Savage has many uses. It can refer to the severity of an act for example (example: The beating was savage). In the context of my post it is merely a subject comparison between the misogynistic warlike superstitious tribes 9f the past (however learned they were) and pur modern society. People in a thousand years may refer to us as savages and subjectively they may be correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@eash
I'm not sure but none of those pronouns suggest anything about the entity being referred to other than to be self referential.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."Both male and female are created in the image of God."in divinitate enim nullus est sexus"
The bible can and is interpereted in many ways and christian theology is far from the only branch of theology. Also if some god(s) made male and female both surely that implies a hermaphrodite (both male and female)? And finally never is a long time are you really really sure that the iron age savages who actually wrote the bible thought of their god(s) as niether male nor female?
Created: