musKeeto:

Seems like 'properly understood' has a new meaning - I got my explanation wrong the first time, but I'm not willing to accept it, so let me rephrase it and blame you for not understanding...


Please let's follow the flow of the argument..

I have no idea how this led to this

Except you're saying God created humans in a vacuum...

Else.. please take your advice


PS: I have never claimed to be a scientist..

A family friend would say - when you're in a hole, stop digging. It just removes all doubts with regard to your stupidity.

Now read your own post again.

God created man...
man chose, of his own freewill, to be disobedient...

However you ask - but God created corruption no? (obviously a trick question that is not borne out of a genuine curiosity about God but mere to satisfy a preconceived notion)
Mr. Anony responds that corruption is not created but is merely a deviation from the norm God handed down to man.

your response? More like saying how can one create rust?

I respond - corruption, like rust, cannot exist in a vacuum.

Your vacuous answer? - "except you're saying God created humans in a vacuum"...

Ok now let us address the obvious nonsense up there... first of all when we were talking about the rust example... the DEVIATION from the norm (i.e. rust) was what we said could not exist in a vacuum. Certainly iron can exist... since it is a thing. Rust however is NOT a created entity that can exist independently of iron, it is rather a chemical reaction that REQUIRES the prior existence of 2 independent materials - iron and oxygen.

Ditto for man... God created humans as an independent entity... so just like iron, we do EXIST as a thing.
However, our CHOICE to disobedience is just like RUST... it is NOT created but is merely a product/reaction borne out of our own natural choice. Iron is not meant to rust but as long as it remains exposed to air and water, that is a chemical reaction bound to happen.

davidylan:

A family friend would say - when you're in a hole, stop digging. It just removes all doubts with regard to your stupidity.

Now read your own post again.

God created man...
man chose, of his own freewill, to be disobedient...

However you ask - but God created corruption no? (obviously a trick question that is not borne out of a genuine curiosity about God but mere to satisfy a preconceived notion)
Mr. Anony responds that corruption is not created but is merely a deviation from the norm God handed down to man.

your response? More like saying how can one create rust?

I respond - corruption, like rust, cannot exist in a vacuum.

Your vacuous answer? - "except you're saying God created humans in a vacuum"...

Ok now let us address the obvious nonsense up there... first of all when we were talking about the rust example... the DEVIATION from the norm (i.e. rust) was what we said could not exist in a vacuum. Certainly iron can exist... since it is a thing. Rust however is NOT a created entity that can exist independently of iron, it is rather a chemical reaction that REQUIRES the prior existence of 2 independent materials - iron and oxygen.

Ditto for man... God created humans as an independent entity... so just like iron, we do EXIST as a thing.
However, our CHOICE to disobedience is just like RUST... it is NOT created but is merely a product/reaction borne out of our own natural choice. Iron is not meant to rust but as long as it remains exposed to air and water, that is a chemical reaction bound to happen.

Like I said earlier..

Seems like 'properly understood' has a new meaning - I got my explanation wrong the first time, but I'm not willing to accept it, so let me rephrase it and blame you for not understanding...

davidylan:
it is NOT created but is merely a product/reaction borne out of our own natural choice. Iron is not meant to rust but as long as it remains exposed to air and water, that is a chemical reaction bound to happen.

And so man was not meant to 'sin' but as long as it/we remained exposed to freewill and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, a natural reaction was bound to happen...

Like your family friend would say

when you're in a hole, stop digging. It just removes all doubts with regard to your stupidity.

musKeeto:
And so man was not meant to 'sin' but as long as it/we remained exposed to freewill and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, a natural reaction was bound to happen...

Like your family friend would say

Again you're simply posting to save face. The above would be exactly why i used the iron and rust analogy except disobedience, like rust, is not really a "natural" reaction since iron was not created solely to rust! Keep iron away from moisture and it will stay pristine forever. The same way we were not created to sin as a "natural reaction" (a silly escape route for folks like you quick to blame God for your own bad choices), we sin only when we stray of our own freewill to do the contrary to God's nature in us.

MacDaddy01:


Anony, you are a dishonest human being! You were thoroughly debunked and now you rush to say that Wiegraf is not using logic?


You then go to twist correct logic into incorrect?



The above premises and conclusion are very valid. Omniscience is paradox. A being can know everything within its senses but no being can know what is beyond his knowledge or senses. How come an omniscient God can not tell when the limits of someones faith? Why did he need to test Abraham if he knew the result? An omniscient being can not exist because, he would know everything that is in existence unfortunately, such a being would have to know what predates his existence.

Spoken just like a teenager high on steroids

Ihedinobi:

Spoken just like a teenager high on steroids

spoken like an ignorant child with short attention span.

Meeeen,

this is definitely MusKeeto reloaded and unleashed

musKeeto:

Like I said earlier..

And so man was not meant to 'sin' but as long as it/we remained exposed to freewill and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, a natural reaction was bound to happen...

Like your family friend would say

when you're in a hole, stop digging. It just removes all doubts with regard to your stupidity.

classic!

cyrexx: Meeeen,

this is definitely MusKeeto reloaded and unleashed
classic!

Actually if you bothered to read further... you would note that muskeetoo was simply quoting my post here verbatim. But of course i dont expect airheads like you to read beyond your nose.

Mr_Anony:
As I said, you need to learn to understand an argument before you go about whinging. The only reason why you do not accept the possibility of omniscience is because having limited knowledge yourself, so you assume that nothing can possibly be unlimited. That is how not to go about it. Verification is for beings with limited knowledge. It is a way to make sure that our knowledge tallies with another knowledge so that we can make sense of things. If an omniscient being by definition is one that knows all things, then it just knows and verification is unnecessary for it. Immediately you define something as omniscient, you can no longer assume that there is something it doesn't know else it wouldn't be omniscient. So really your logic is circular. You start with omniscience cannot possibly exist then you define a being that is not omniscient and then conclude with omniscience cannot exist.

let me show you why your logic fails.

Premise 1: An omniscient being is one that knows everything
Premise 2: An omniscient being cannot know X
Conclusion: Therefore an omniscient being cannot exist.

(it doesn't matter what X is because the moment you define something as all-knowing, you immediately cannot make exceptions for it)

Anony, we aren't debating evil, we are trying to determine if it's possible to be omniscient. You are starting from the premise that the being already is omniscient without showing how it became so, or if it is even possible. Again, you are already assuming that the being is omniscient before showing it is possible. You are the one starting from the wrong place. This is simple, there is no way, from the very first, our magician could determine it actually was omniscient. It was never omniscient, it could never even reach that point. It's unverifiable, just like me saying there are supernatural or simply other universes out there that we cannot contact, it's unverifiable, we can thus dismiss my claims as nonsense. But this case is even worse, how can he know what he doesn't know? Do you understand?

Mr_Anony:
Now to the question of thought, you were missing the point of the question. I was trying to show you how there is knowledge we cannot have. I cannot experience your thoughts as you do because to do that I will have to cease being me and become you.
All you have been able to provide are people reading information transmitted by the body. They are mere signals much like speech and facial expressions and writing. The only difference is that these signals are obtained in a different way i.e. by looking at a bunch of numbers and graphs and decoding them. At best, you have shown a new form of inferring thought but never thought itself.

This was what you asked

Mr_Anony:
I hold that you are not capable of thought, would you mind verifying please? Give us evidence that you can think.

This was my response

Wiegraf:
We could scan my brain. Scan my brainwaves. Recently, even memories were implanted in mice.

Can you verify the unverifiable?


Edit: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120910143407.htm

If that was your aim, you should have asked the question differently, or used another one entirely. I knew what you were driving at from the get go;

Anony:
I was trying to show you how there is knowledge we cannot have.

Which greatly aids my point about omniscience. From my previous post:

Wiegraf:
Your (EDIT to supply context: new) question shifts the focus to experience, similar to perception which I suggested you use earlier. A more apt question to ask since you can verify my thoughts would be if you perceive the color blue the same way I do. In other words, can one verify that you experience blue the same way I do? Even that I cannot convincingly say no to due to neurosciences' advances. And if you really can't, it only aids my point. Just as you cannot know if we perceive stuff in the same way because we are separate people, god cannot know if say there's another god dictating over his own sheeple, or indeed trolling him.

The earlier post

Wiegraf:
Moving on, you mean to ask if you can perceive the exact same thought I'm having, or something similar, yes? Find a better example for crying out loud.

...and earlier still

Wiegraf:
I can't see where you're going with this except to help me prove my point. You're looking for an unverifiable claim often encountered but generally accepted as fact? If so, that's silly, it doesn't aid your 'argument'. Try perception though, but I'm not sure if that is unverifiable as well.

Eventually adding 'experience' your initial assertion did improve it, but by that point I wanted to hammer it into you that your initial assertion wouldn't get you were you wanted to go to, and also that it was wrong.

Mr_Anony:
Also, arguing based on what science might achieve in the future is another poor way to argue. I may as well predict that men will evolve wings in the future and then argue based on that.

Did you read the links? It's technology being used today, not as accurate as it could be but still, it's in use today and is actively being developed. That statement is similar to me 5 years ago saying we'll be using SSD's in 10 years time. Unless there was some unexpected paradigm shift, it was going to happen. Companies had invested then and they are now indeed rolling them out.




Random: Then you call me illogical... You best be trollin... You make assumption upon assumption, most of them unverifiable, and inject your subjectivity into every.single.thing... You run off on unverifiable tangents as soon as you get excited... Try to keep it objective

EDIT: Quotes to provide context, clarity, grammar (sort of)

davidylan:

Actually if you bothered to read further... you would note that muskeetoo was simply quoting my post here verbatim. But of course i dont expect airheads like you to read beyond your nose.

and if you bothered to shed your bias and read his posts objectively, you might get the full gist of what he is saying. But no. A foul-mouthed hypocritical douchebag like you cant see anything but open his dirty hypocritical mouth and rain invectives unnecessarily and yet hypocrites like you think they are morally better than non-believers.

wiegraf: Using phone
Anony, we aren't debating evil, we are trying to determine if it's possible to be omniscient. You are starting from the premise that the being already is omniscient without showing how it became so. Again, you are already assuming that the being is omniscient before showing how it became so. You are the one starting from the wrong place. This is simple, there is no way, from the very first, our magician could determine it actually was omniscient. It was never omniscient, it could never even reach that point. It's unverifiable, just like me saying there are supernatural or simply other universes out there that we cannot contact, it's unverifiable, we can thus dismiss my claims as nonsense. But this case is even worse, how can he know what he doesn't know? Do you understand?

Try to keep it objective

Ah i actually love this line of reasoning. Now if only we could extend it to the long sleep-inducing list of stuff atheists like you constantly regale us about evolution, abiogenesis... you know those things that you all talk about already assuming that they exist without ever showing us how. You people generally start from the wrong place. It is simple, there is no way, from the very first, our resident magicians (popularly known as pseudo-scientists) could determine that evolution was true. It never happened. How could RNA just appear from primordial soup? It is unverifiable. Just like me saying a monkey is a product of millions of years of mutating bacteria that we cannot replicate. Its unverifiable, we can thus dismiss all your claims as nonsense.

cyrexx:

and if you bothered to shed your bias and read his posts objectively, you might get the full gist of what he is saying. But no. A foul-mouthed hypocritical douchebag like you cant see anything but open his dirty hypocritical mouth and rain invectives unnecessarily and yet hypocrites like you think they are morally better than non-believers.

Actually he wasnt making any shred of sense not to talk of it being objective. He kept misconstruing the issue... at one point we are discussing rust being a consequence/reaction to an action i.e. iron being exposed to moisture and he immediately equates humans with rust rather than iron?

Again just another hurt atheist who feels bad that there are some willing to stand up to ignorant crybabies whose only means of assuaging their troubled and empty consciences is by cyber bullying. Cant stand the heat? Stay in your father's bedroom bro.

davidylan:

Actually he wasnt making any shred of sense not to talk of it being objective. He kept misconstruing the issue... at one point we are discussing rust being a consequence/reaction to an action i.e. iron being exposed to moisture and he immediately equates humans with rust rather than iron?

Again just another hurt atheist who feels bad that there are some willing to stand up to ignorant crybabies whose only means of assuaging their troubled and empty consciences is by cyber bullying. Cant stand the heat? Stay in your father's bedroom bro.

do you think you are making any sense?

If what you can do is to open your dirty gutter and do some cyberbully and then think you are making any impact as to foolishly believe you are making crybabies. Think again, cos you are not making any sense. You are just trolling

cyrexx:

do you think you are making any sense?

If what you can do is to open your dirty guttet and do some cyberbully and then think you are making any impact as to foolishly believe you are making crybabies. Think again, cos you are not making any sense. You are just trolling

and your proof of this is? Until you show me where i havent made sense then i conclude you are merely bleating in frustration. Go sit down dude or take a cold shower. Let those who actually have something cerebral to contribute have the floor. you've always been nothing but a wingman. Egging the others on, chipping in with an abuse here and there but never really taking a stand on anything... apparently because you have pretty much no core when it comes to your alleged convictions.

davidylan:

Ah i actually love this line of reasoning. Now if only we could extend it to the long sleep-inducing list of stuff atheists like you constantly regale us about evolution, abiogenesis... you know those things that you all talk about already assuming that they exist without ever showing us how. You people generally start from the wrong place. It is simple, there is no way, from the very first, our resident magicians (popularly known as pseudo-scientists) could determine that evolution was true. It never happened. How could RNA just appear from primordial soup? It is unverifiable. Just like me saying a monkey is a product of millions of years of mutating bacteria that we cannot replicate. Its unverifiable, we can thus dismiss all your claims as nonsense.

di, lan david, lan, dav, I, land and davididlan landav I'd lan

Is my davidylan good enough for you? I'm still working on it.

Don't bother replying, I don't read your posts

wiegraf:

di, lan david, lan, dav, I, land and davididlan landav I'd lan

Is my davidylan good enough for you? I'm still working on it.

Don't bother replying, I don't read your posts

But they disturb you enough to quote them? Absurd.
Of course why should you read my posts? I dont have the patience of the likes of Mr. Anony, i simply call BS right out of the box.

davidylan:

Ah i actually love this line of reasoning. Now if only we could extend it to the long sleep-inducing list of stuff atheists like you constantly regale us about evolution, abiogenesis... you know those things that you all talk about already assuming that they exist without ever showing us how. You people generally start from the wrong place. It is simple, there is no way, from the very first, our resident magicians (popularly known as pseudo-scientists) could determine that evolution was true. It never happened. How could RNA just appear from primordial soup? It is unverifiable. Just like me saying a monkey is a product of millions of years of mutating bacteria that we cannot replicate. Its unverifiable, we can thus dismiss all your claims as nonsense.

lol! Davidylan appears again! speaking of magicians I guess all the debunk potion we gave you has worn off and you're back for a fresh brew . I'll drink to that.


Like every evolutionary biologist will tell you, the problem is not whether we evolved from simple organisms (there is overwhelming evidence to prove this). Rather that we came from a primordial soup. Now this is one of many other suggestions to what the origin of the first organisms must have been. Other ideas believe comets full of water and simple life organisms crashed to earth and blossomed to what we have now. No one will tell you either of these is a fact, but they will present you with reasonable evidence to defend their position. Having said this, you do know scientists have been able to reproduce amino acids from a combination of gasses and an electric charge? Give them more time and they'll find the missing piece.

Your idea to drop everything simply because one piece doesn't add up is simply ludicrous. Einstein's equation of general relativity didn't add up either at first when he used the cosmological constant. A few years later with plenty experimenting and observation, they fixed that problem and it all adds up perfectly on the right hand side of that equation. Imagine if he took your approach now to dump everything cos one little piece didn't add up?

You will make a good scientist if you didn't substitute god where your understanding stops. Your solution (or lack of it) leaves us worse of from where we started. Daddy big boss made everything happen? lol I need not elaborate more on this.

damn!!! I just saw the finest booty walk past downstairs my window!! now i've lost my chain of thought!

davidylan:

and your proof of this is? Until you show me where i havent made sense then i conclude you are merely bleating in frustration. Go sit down dude or take a cold shower. Let those who actually have something cerebral to contribute have the floor. you've always been nothing but a wingman. Egging the others on, chipping in with an abuse here and there but never really taking a stand on anything... apparently because you have pretty much no core when it comes to your alleged convictions.

and this is coming from you? the quack geneticist that says telomere to telomere fusion is impossible only to come back to another post and deny saying that! David David David you crack me up

davidylan:

and your proof of this is? Until you show me where i havent made sense then i conclude you are merely bleating in frustration. Go sit down dude or take a cold shower. Let those who actually have something cerebral to contribute have the floor. you've always been nothing but a wingman. Egging the others on, chipping in with an abuse here and there but never really taking a stand on anything... apparently because you have pretty much no core when it comes to your alleged convictions.

and you have been proven several times to be a quack scientist with nothing upstairs. What you lack in sensibility you attempt to make up for with dirty stinking foul-mouthed abuses. Fake christian and fake scientist.

Area_boy:

and this is coming from you? the quack geneticist that says telomere to telomere fusion is impossible only to come back to another post and deny saying that! David David David you crack me up

LWKMD



lol quack biologisT!! Everyone knows!

MacDaddy01:


LWKMD

x2

cyrexx:

and you have been proven several times to be a quack scientist with nothing upstairs. What you lack in sensibility you attempt to make up for with dirty stinking foul-mouthed abuses. Fake christian and fake scientist.

How do you know what a fake christian is? Or what a fake scientist is? What is the mark of genuineness for either? Do you know?

Ihedinobi:

How do you know what a fake christian is? Or what a fake scientist is? What is the mark of genuineness for either? Do you know?

What do you call a biologist that rejects evolution?


What do you call a christian that insults and then goes on to call atheists abusive, intolerant and hypocrites?



Answer;

Davidylan

Area_boy:

lol! Davidylan appears again! speaking of magicians I guess all the debunk potion we gave you has worn off and you're back for a fresh brew . I'll drink to that.


Like every evolutionary biologist will tell you, the problem is not whether we evolved from simple organisms (there is overwhelming evidence to prove this). Rather that we came from a primordial soup. Now this is one of many other suggestions to what the origin of the first organisms must have been. Other ideas believe comets full of water and simple life organisms crashed to earth and blossomed to what we have now. No one will tell you either of these is a fact, but they will present you with reasonable evidence to defend their position. Having said this, you do know scientists have been able to reproduce amino acids from a combination of gasses and an electric charge? Give them more time and they'll find the missing piece.

Your idea to drop everything simply because one piece doesn't add up is simply ludicrous. Einstein's equation of general relativity didn't add up either at first when he used the cosmological constant. A few years later with plenty experimenting and observation, they fixed that problem and it all adds up perfectly on the right hand side of that equation. Imagine if he took your approach now to dump everything cos one little piece didn't add up?

You will make a good scientist if you didn't substitute god where your understanding stops. Your solution (or lack of it) leaves us worse of from where we started. Daddy big boss made everything happen? lol I need not elaborate more on this.

damn!!! I just saw the finest booty walk past downstairs my window!! now i've lost my chain of thought!

Given how easily you lose your chain of thought, how are we to believe that you kept it close enough to follow all that "reasonable evidence" you're gloating over? Think you can keep it close enough to produce the most significant of that evidence so that we can examine it?

davidylan:
Again you're simply posting to save face. The above would be exactly why i used the iron and rust analogy except disobedience, like rust, is not really a "natural" reaction since iron was not created solely to rust! Keep iron away from moisture and it will stay pristine forever. The same way we were not created to sin as a "natural reaction" (a silly escape route for folks like you quick to blame God for your own bad choices), we sin only when we stray of our own freewill to do the contrary to God's nature in us.

Was man created to sin? No.
Is sin a deviation from the original purpose of man's creation? Yes.
What did man need to sin? Freewill and a tree in the middle of the garden.
But freewill doesn't necessarily lead to sin? Of course. But it is necessary if one wants to sin.

Mr_Anony:
If God were to instill into us the knowledge of Him by default such that we must all do His will, the He would have to take away free choice and make us into robots.

Who provided man the tools necessary for sin to occur?
Your guess is as good as mine...


You and Anony below..

MacDaddy01:

What do you call a biologist that rejects evolution?


What do you call a christian that insults and then goes on to call atheists abusive, intolerant and hypocrites?



Answer;

Davidylan

Silly questions really, seeing as you think that evolution is a science and therefore a biologist cannot reject it. Is it really? And why should we believe it is?

Second question is all the more silly because it assumes that certain pronouncements are insolent and abusive. But then, is it possible to insult a mad man by calling him crazy? Or to abuse a fool by telling him that his reasoning is empty? What you think?

Ihedinobi:

How do you know what a fake christian is? Or what a fake scientist is? What is the mark of genuineness for either? Do you know?

the bible says by their fruit you shall know them. He is not bearing any fruit at all. He is no christian neither a knowledgeable scientist by any standard and dont ask me questions to which you already know the answer. Dont start the art of dodging the obvious like your friend. Lets save the usual back and forth for another time.

musKeeto:

Was man created to sin? No.
Is sin a deviation from the original purpose of man's creation? Yes.
What did man need to sin? Freewill and a tree in the middle of the garden.
But freewill doesn't necessarily lead to sin? Of course. But it is necessary if one wants to sin.


Who provided man the tools necessary for sin to occur?
Your guess is as good as mine...


You and Anony below..

Seriously, I keep giving you guys benefit of the doubt only for you to keep proving yourselves incapable of thought and hence unworthy of the hand-up.

Is freewill necessary to doing right? Yes or no? If no, is it possible to qualify any action at all that is done without freewill?

cyrexx:

the bible says by their fruit you shall know them. He is not bearing any fruit at all. He is no christian neither a knowledgeable scientist by any standard and dont ask me questions to which you already know the answer. Dont start the art of dodging the obvious like your friend. Lets save the usual back and forth for another time.

which is it? the bible is real and its words taken seriously or merely to be used as a hypocritical stick to beat christians with? Make up your mind you despicable weasel.
IF the bible is a book of fairy tales then why are you worried about my "fruits"?

lol as for not being a "knowledgeable scientist"... abeg let me rush off to take a shower, my job has to be attended to. I would hate to work jobs that let these empty heads so much time to rant at a "god" they claim is nothing but a sky pixie.

Ihedinobi:

Silly questions really, seeing as you think that evolution is a science and therefore a biologist cannot reject it. Is it really? And why should we believe it is?

Second question is all the more silly because it assumes that certain pronouncements are insolent and abusive. But then, is it possible to insult a mad man by calling him crazy? Or to abuse a fool by telling him that his reasoning is empty? What you think?

Ignorance. Biologists overwhelmingly support evolution.


When you call people fools and airheads, is that not an insult or do you really think that atheists are fools?

cyrexx:

and you have been proven several times to be a quack scientist with nothing upstairs. What you lack in sensibility you attempt to make up for with dirty stinking foul-mouthed abuses. Fake christian and fake scientist.

and why have you refused to bring up exactly the points that show that i "have nothing upstairs"? I'll be back in 9 hrs for you tools.

Nna.. that spambot don finally catch me... mscheew..

davidylan:
Again you're simply posting to save face. The above would be exactly why i used the iron and rust analogy except disobedience, like rust, is not really a "natural" reaction since iron was not created solely to rust! Keep iron away from moisture and it will stay pristine forever. The same way we were not created to sin as a "natural reaction" (a silly escape route for folks like you quick to blame God for your own bad choices), we sin only when we stray of our own freewill to do the contrary to God's nature in us.

Was man created to sin? No.
Is sin a deviation from the original purpose of man's creation? Yes.
What did man need to sin? Freewill and a tree in the middle of the garden.
But freewill doesn't necessarily lead to sin? Of course. But it is necessary if one wants to sin.

Mr_Anony:
If God were to instill into us the knowledge of Him by default such that we must all do His will, the He would have to take away free choice and make us into robots.

Who provided man the tools necessary for sin to occur?
Your guess is as good as mine...


You and Anony below..

muskeeto2: Nna.. that spambot don finally catch me... mscheew..




Was man created to sin? No.
Is sin a deviation from the original purpose of man's creation? Yes.
What did man need to sin? Freewill and a tree in the middle of the garden.
But freewill doesn't necessarily lead to sin? Of course. But it is necessary if one wants to sin.

Who provided man the tools necessary for sin to occur?
Your guess is as good as mine...

Stup[i]i[/i]d really. Its like saying schools are to blame for providing students grass to play soccer on rather than studying for exams and hence to blame for their failing to pass no?

*Shakes head in sorrow*