Ihedinobi:

Again, nonsense. Time is simply the flow of events, if we are going to get technical. As such, it would correspond to a [size=18pt]line[/size] running along the equator of the inner surface of the circle as it spins on an axis. Therefore, except I somehow miniaturise myself to walk along that line, I can deflate the ball and turn.it inside out without subjecting myself to that line.

What nonsense line are you on about? Looking at the false things in your comments (in bold) let me educate you and save you from ignorance;

1) Time is not simply anything. It is a complex thing. It is much more than a flow of events. If one manages to freeze all the events, therefore no flow, time will still exist. The paradox; if you stop time, you can still count the amount of time that time was stopped. Time is more of a dimension as seen in the mathematical and physics model of spacetime.

2) Following the first point, your talking of lines and equators is quite foolish and reductionist; reducing time to some imaginary timeline.

3) Deflating the ball means that you dealt with pressurised air. You let the air out. Just as I said- God must use time if he is to make changes in our universe- just as we must deal with pressurized air to do anyting inside the ball.

4) God being outside time is quite foolish physically and biblically. First, God would not have memories because memories are time based, they are past thoughts remembered. You can have a past without time. Furthermore, God created the world in six periods. He made prophecies in the bible, he had plagues for the Egyptians sequentially. Does thAt sound like a bieng outside time or constrained by it in our universe?

Ihedinobi:
Did anyone tell you that He does?

So you want to dubiously argue that your god does not think like an intelligent being with sequential thoughts? He can not use logic going from premise to conclusion?

lmao, now wonder you are failing and many christians are becoming atheists on nairaland.

Ihedinobi:
That's an issue?

Dodging. Could Judas avoid betraying Jesus? Did he have the freewill to do that? Remember that Jesus prophesied it.

mazaje:

Who is talking about meta physics here?. . . .

Everyone...talking about God is the same as talking about what is beyond the physical...remind me what metaphysics is again please.

striktlymi:

Everyone...talking about God is the same as talking about what is beyond the physical...remind me what metaphysics is again please.

Granted. . .All these attributes that the god creators and inventors ascribes to their various gods are just meaningless and can be shown to be logically incompatible. . .For example how can a god that is said to exist outside time and space act inside time and space?. . .You give your god attributes that are impossible like say a married bachelor. . .How can one be a married bachelor?. . .Here is how a guy describes what you guys are doing and I will quote him here. . .

"The Omniscient is Surprised

A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.

We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible."

Logicboy03:

What nonsense line are you on about? Looking at the false things in your comments (in bold) let me educate you and save you from ignorance;

Sure, Lord Dumb

1) Time is not simply anything. It is a complex thing. It is much more than a flow of events. If one manages to freeze all the events, therefore no flow, time will still exist. The paradox; if you stop time, you can still count the amount of time that time was stopped. Time is more of a dimension as seen in the mathematical and physics model of spacetime.

Let me get this straight. If somehow I can manage to stop every event, right down to the pulsating of radiation and the vibration of crystals, time would still exist? How would it exactly?

2) Following the first point, your talking of lines and equators is quite foolish and reductionist; reducing time to some imaginary timeline.

Lmao. Honestly, the thing I like about your stupidity is that it gives off honest vibes. Even though you can try to play underhandes games to win an argument, you're basically an honest fool. Not merely a rabid antichristian.

Now, what exactly do you suppose it means to "reduce time to a timeline, imaginary or not"?

3) Deflating the ball means that you dealt with pressurised air. You let the air out. Just as I said- God must use time if he is to make changes in our universe- just as we must deal with pressurized air to do anyting inside the ball.

Of course, He "uses" time. But is He subject to it? And your use of the analogy is still untenable until you convince me of this weird conception of time you have.

4) God being outside time is quite foolish physically and biblically. First, God would not have memories because memories are time based, they are past thoughts remembered. You can have a past without time. Furthermore, God created the world in six periods. He made prophecies in the bible, he had plagues for the Egyptians sequentially. Does thAt sound like a bieng outside time or constrained by it in our universe?

Sure it does. God being outside of time can affect parts of our history without subjecting Himself.to it. It's like the analogy Anony and I gave you months ago when I was much newer in NL. Consider God to be a writer with a book. He can write in parts of the book or alter other parts of it without subjecting himself to the conditipns of the book. In fact, it is because he is outside the influence of the book that he has such powers. Here the book is time or history unfolding.

So you want to dubiously argue that your god does not think like an intelligent being with sequential thoughts? He can not use logic going from premise to conclusion?

Logic is a tool we were built to be able to use under the conditions of our creaturehood. It's a good tool and like everything else in creation, is modeled after some trait of the Creator's.

God does not need to reason linearly like us because He sees everything all at once. His intelligence is essentially different.from ours although ours was built to resemble His. And since He does not experience passage of time, the dynamics are fundamentally different. Also, He is subject to no conditions at all, so He does not have to consider things like someone limited by his environment does.

So, yes, His reasoning is on a whole other level than ours although ours was modeled after His.

lmao, now wonder you are failing and many christians are becoming atheists on nairaland.

I'm failing? Why do you say that? Do you know what I'm supposed to be achieving?

No Christians are becoming atheists, my fine dull friend. False Christians are exposing themselves.

Dodging. Could Judas avoid betraying Jesus? Did he have the freewill to do that? Remember that Jesus prophesied it.

How is this not a distraction from the issue? If you want to explain how Judas's free will was nullified by Jesus's foreknowledge, proceed to do so.

Good morning Mazaje,

I'd really like to be an observer in your dance with Ihe; it's interesting that way...

mazaje:

Granted. . .

Glad to know we are cool with the above.

mazaje:
All these attributes that the god creators and inventors ascribes to their various gods are just meaningless and can be shown to be logically incompatible

I am of the opinion that your thoughts above are on point...so many things are meaningless; how can a Universe just emerge out of nowhere?...how come the Earth is round and not rectangular or flat?...so many meaningless things but the fact that we have no idea why these are does not make them any less the truth.

mazaje:
. . .For example how can a god that is said to exist outside time and space act inside time and space?

Omnipotence should answer that question I believe! Think of it this way...an inventor invents a computer and made a virtual world where everything in that world is subject to something close to time without he himself being subject to it...if this inventor has the ability of being part of that virtual world and decides to go in there to interact with his creations, does that mean he necessarily is subject to the computer time?

Note that the fact that some things seem logically incompatible now does not mean that they will remain outside the sphere of logic forever...some millenia ago, who could have thought it logically possible for man to fly in the air or be in the sea for months without drowning?

mazaje:
. . .You give your god attributes that are impossible like say a married bachelor. . .How can one be a married bachelor?. . .Here is how a guy describes what you guys are doing and I will quote him here. . .

What defines impossibility for us really has something to do with what humans have decided makes sense for them...trust me, if the concept of married bachelor is espoused and developed, giving it meaning over time and becomes generally accepted, you will definitely find that concept in the lexicon before a thousand years is over; and it would make perfect sense for us then.

mazaje:
"The Omniscient is Surprised

A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.

We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible."

I am quite impressed with your thought process...they seem to be very much on point. Why haven't I been conversing with you when it would make good sport for me...

Now let's put this in proper perspective...shall we?...

Emotions can be defined thus:

e·mo·tion
/iˈmōSHən/
Noun
1. A natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.

2. Any of the particular feelings that characterize such a state of mind, such as joy, anger, love, hate, horror, etc.

If we go with the following definitions then we can see at a glance that emotions really have little to do with the feelings we exhibit but on the manner in which we exhibit such feelings. For instance, when an individual pretends to cry, we can't say that that individual is being emotional.

The simple reason would be that emotions has to do with the natural inclination of the mind to exhibit such feelings instinctively...it needs not be forced or induced. I know that example is quite hollow but work with me on this:

When a child you love steals from you but you really are not angry (in the sense that you are not moved instinctively to demonstrate your feelings) but know that you need to punish the child anyways for what he did...you tell the child that he is grounded for a month, just saying.

Would it be inappropriate to say that you were angry with the child to demonstrate what just transpired between you and that child? Or do you think it would be out of place for that child to tell his friends that he can't steal any more because his father would be angry with him?

The dad obviously did not react due to his emotions but the simple fact that his actions tend to suggest so would make everyone think otherwise. The same can be applied to God. He need not act out of emotions but his justice, mercy etc can be mistaken for emotions like anger, compassion etc.

Ihedinobi:

Sure, Lord Dumb



Let me get this straight. If somehow I can manage to stop every event, right down to the pulsating of radiation and the vibration of crystals, time would still exist? How would it exactly?

lol....if you pause every event and start it sometime later. Wouldnt there be a time lapse between starting and stopping? The only way to stop time would be to destroy our universe. Even at that, there might be other universes with time, so it may or may not work.

It would be like trying to remove all energy from our universe. You cant, just like time is not stoppable/removable in our universe.

Your ignorance on basic science is outstanding

Ihedinobi:
Lmao. Honestly, the thing I like about your stupidity is that it gives off honest vibes. Even though you can try to play underhandes games to win an argument, you're basically an honest fool. Not merely a rabid antichristian.

Now, what exactly do you suppose it means to "reduce time to a timeline, imaginary or not"?

You didnt even make a point here. Just abuse. Why are you questioning what you did? You reduced time to a flow of events meaning a linear flow of progression. You also dubiously related it to a line around a sphere and equator. The equator is an imaginary line.


You are silly.

Ihedinobi:
Of course, He "uses" time. But is He subject to it? And your use of the analogy is still untenable until you convince me of this weird conception of time you have.

How does one use time while being outside of it? How does one work for 6 days or periods and rest for one without being subject to time?

Even if God is not subject to time, the main point was that he has to operate within time within our universe. Lets assune tat God can go into the future and past- the explanation would be like using a time-travel machine. Even at using a time travel machine, one would still be subject to time because the being is only traversing through time not outside it. Going to the past is only reversing time, you are still making use of time measurements to go back to a year in time.

[size=14pt]
Now that I have explained and explained why God being outside time is foolish and I see that you have avoided the issues of god not having memories if he is outside time, you must tender your explanation how it is possible to be outside time and have memories or succeeding thoughts, and also what it means to be outside time or else, SHUT THE F4CK UP. DATS ALL. ASK MY OGA AT THE TOP FOR MORE CLARIFICATIONS[/size]

Ihedinobi:
Sure it does. God being outside of time can affect parts of our history without subjecting Himself.to it. It's like the analogy Anony and I gave you months ago when I was much newer in NL. Consider God to be a writer with a book. He can write in parts of the book or alter other parts of it without subjecting himself to the conditipns of the book. In fact, it is because he is outside the influence of the book that he has such powers. Here the book is time or history unfolding.

God can not be outside time. Your bible never shows so and physics negates that. Infact, your bible shows God to be consistently operating within time.

Your analogy of A writer is false and silly. The world of the writer does not exist. Fail. It is only ink on paper. A better but flawed example would be a game developer (although the videogame world still is fictional). The game developer iis not bound by the rules of the videogame universe. However, here is an interesting fact; THE GAME DEVELOPER AND TE CHARACTER IN THE VIDEOGAME UNIVERSE ARE BOTH BOUND BY TIME; THE DEVELOPER BY TIME IN THE REAL WORLD AND THE GAME CHARACTER BY SEQUENCES IN THE CODING OF THE GAME. There are constraints in any system. This is why omnipotence is impossible and so is being outside time. Time is a universal constraint.

Ihedinobi:
Logic is a tool we were built to be able to use under the conditions of our creaturehood. It's a good tool and like everything else in creation, is modeled after some trait of the Creator's.

God does not need to reason linearly like us because He sees everything all at once. His intelligence is essentially different.from ours although ours was built to resemble His. And since He does not experience passage of time, the dynamics are fundamentally different. Also, He is subject to no conditions at all, so He does not have to consider things like someone limited by his environment does.

So, yes, His reasoning is on a whole other level than ours although ours was modeled after His.

Seeing everything at once does not make any difference, modal logic is always linear. If your god can not reason linearly, he doesnt exist. He is not an intelligent being.

You can process a billion things at once but each process is going to be linear.

Example;

John is a medical doctor >>> Therefore he went to university >>> Therefore he had class mates.

There is no way in the world that such reasoning wont be linear or sequential. There is no sequence without time. Without time, your God can not reason like this. I am better than your god.

Ihedinobi:
I'm failing? Why do you say that? Do you know what I'm supposed to be achieving?

No Christians are becoming atheists, my fine dull friend. False Christians are exposing themselves.

Every christian tat becomes an atheist was actually a false christian? Lol...lololol...lmao.....Congrats, you have achieved a new level of foolishness.

Ihedinobi:
How is this not a distraction from the issue? If you want to explain how Judas's free will was nullified by Jesus's foreknowledge, proceed to do so.

Judas could not nullify Jesus foreknowlegde.Jesus foreknowledge nullified Judas's freewill. The foreknoweldge of an omniscient being is binding. (Jesus is God or at least Jesus got his propecy from God- whichever camp ur from)


God saying that you will die tommorow is no different from him knowing that you will die. Both will have the same result.

Ihedinobi:

Well, nature is God's design

If nature is god's design, then your god must be a quack and inept for creating such an imperfect harmful world.

ihedinobi: The question remains, "could it not have been designed to continue developing and producing new life forms?" Does a creator's work of creation not end when he has finished actualizing a "mechanism" that can go on producing new elements?

The problem with that line of thought is that it was said that god already completed and finished EVERYTHING on earth according to Exo 20v11 which therefore closes the room for the appearance of NEW life forms, but which have been documented.

And we are talking about a living god here not an idol and so, the terms "could, if " do not apply.

And your god couldnt think of a better 'mechanism ' than that which leads to death. He must really be limited in his designs or at least evil.

Ihedinobi: An iddiot's comprehension Weren't you the one who talked about mistakes? Why sound now like the whole system was designed to kill? Are glitches the same as the system itself or failures in the system?

A fool's reply so the lions system is not designed to kill or the snake's venom not designed to paralyze or kill? your god carefully designed such systems for such purposes (if he did) so what exactly do you mean by the bold?

Ihedinobi: Now, by definition, a designed system operates correctly when certain conditions obtain. When they vary in some way, the system's output varies accordingly. Creation, being a designed system, will only run perfectly if its optimal operating conditions are met.

what exactly do you mean by the rubbish above if a designed system doesn't function well, is it the fault of the sysem or the designer. Dont be dumb!

Ihedinobi: Your common sense is only common around willfully dense people. As I have already said, it is not unreasonable that a system continues to produce new elements after its creator has finished producing it if he designed it to do so.

quote one single place in the bible where it says god designed life to continue to create itself except that god finished making everything.

Your reply is a fool's reply to denying the obvious by using the term 'if' when refering to a living god who wrote a book that contains both the past and the future. Your own concept of god is made up in your mind.

Ihedinobi: Sure I do

then you are indeed dumb

Ihedinobi: By deciding that God was not trustworthy and choosing to fashion his own destiny independent of Him.

the god that we can see or that which we cant?. Why would any reasonable person fashion his 'destiny ' according to a mythical character? na wa for you ooo!!

Ihedinobi: Well, creation went south. Man was lord of all the material realms so when he rebelled, like any other monarch or ruler, he took his realms with him into rebellion.

story! story!! what is this rubbish?. even a five years old will find fault with this nonsense.

Ihedinobi: As for why consequences exist, our universe runs on cause and effect. If man broke with God, he effectively broke with the power that kept him and his realms going. That would mean that everything that needed that power to maintain itself would start to break down. It's that simple.

did a person with a functioning brain write the above? how does man breaking with god affect the amount of rain that falls for example.? dont be an idiot

Ihedinobi: Lol. Are we?

So all the above says what exactly? That there was nothing built from scratch from which other things came?

that the story of a designer in nature is dumb and not true.

Ihedinobi:

It's ok if you're surprised. I think you've been in a cave too long to have experienced human intelligence, real human intelligence before.

Anyway, I can choose to not believe that your flying pig doesn't exisr. That's my affair. But the instant I start claiming that it in faxt does not exist, it becomes my responsibility to prove that it doesn't.

Like I said, simple logic.

how can you say something does not exist without claiming in fact that it doesn't exist.?

once you think my flying pig doesn't and dont believe along with me, then we have two opposing sides and burden of proof is on both of us to prove our sides.

is logic too much for your low capacity brain?

ooman:

how can you say something does not exist without claiming in fact that it doesn't exist.?

once you think my flying pig doesn't and dont believe along with me, then we have two opposing sides and burden of proof is on both of us to prove our sides.

is logic too much for your low capacity brain?

Oh thou child of mischief...you still have the impudence to dishonour the flying spaghetti monster?

Aha!

striktlymi:
For starters, if you hold that the future need not be determined by a conscious agent, then that leaves God out of it which sends ooman's position to the gallows.

Not arguing for ooman. Barely read through the thread even (sadly, being an adult sucks), more like skimmed through.

striktlymi:
Now if the future is not determined by God but by something or someone else then it implies that God has nothing to do with man's freewill because he has not determined what man will do; but rather his omniscient allows him to see man's future but powerless to change it even if he wanted to.

And so long as he interacted with us, he would have no free will himself as well. As he must know about all his future actions pertaining to us as well, and go through with them.

Now, the bolded bit makes no sense because....what free will? There wouldn't be any free will for god to interact with.

striktlymi:
The bone of contention here is whether or not God's omniscient renders man's freewill irrelevant and I have shown that it would be impractical for God to determine man's future without making man's decision for him. I believe that God does not determine man's future and I know that omniscience has nothing to do with determining someone's future...

The bolded, I must have missed that because you have not shown that, not at all. Please show me exactly where you do that.

striktlymi:
The strength of your argument really would lie in the thought that man's future is determined irrespective of who or what determines it...if this can be shown then it would be appropriate to say that man has no freewill but this would have nothing to do with God's omniscience. But the loophole in your argument is that you have not shown that the future of man is determined.

First off, I've already shown that man's future would have to be determined if an infallible omniscient exists as -
- How do you figure out something that isn't determinable?
- How could an infallible omniscient be wrong?

And why should I show that man's future is determined? I am not making that claim, and this is a hypothetical discussion. It's about if's and "1 + 1's". This if in particular; If an infallible omniscient exists, then free will cannot exist.

striktlymi:
I have demonstrated a number of times, I think, that for us to accept that the free will of man is impaired there is a need to prove that man is coerced to take any action...that what man does has nothing to do with what he would have wanted to do if given the freedom of choice...

There wouldn't be any free will to impair in the fist place, he wouldn't have had a choice but to follow the predetermined path else the omniscient would be.... wrong....

Also, again, read my immediate above. Elaborating on that further, how do you know something without determining it?

Not enough time, but let's look at time travel and some of the issues that entails, this could perhaps help you. This is all hypothetical (people seem to miss this, I'm tired of having to state this as it should be obvious, no? Perhaps I'm wrong).

Now, assuming you say god knows the future via time travel, then a determined universe need not necessarily exist, but god isn't infallibly omniscient. Not at all. He goes forward, sees what happens, but it's still just one of many possible futures, he does not know which will take place or what will happen until he actually travels to the future. That isn't omniscient, or is it?

If he goes back in time, alters a few things, to confirm his changes he would now have to travel back to the future (remember he's using time travel) to find out which future takes place. Again, that isn't infallably omniscient, or is it? He does not know what future will take place till he goes to see it.

There are other complications with this, for instance,

-what happens to all those people in the changed future, do they just never exist? Once he has gone to that future, those people have existed. The people in that future universe had lives and what not, that universe has stars, matter etc, all that existed. When he goes back, what happens, it never happened? Imagine if someone went back in time and altered the past of our current universe. That would mean we never existed? This is all multiverse related stuff though.

-this ignores uncertainty, which is truly random. Time has no say on uncertainty. Hypothetically, if you could go back in time and repeat the exact same action, using the exact same matter (not really possible, considering work and entropy, but you get the gist), at the exact same time, you would get different results! Now, uncertainty's issues are usually only drastic at the quantum level, but combine that with chaos theory, and you can see the implications. In essence, even if time travel were possible,

God could travel to the future, do absolutely nothing,
go back, do absolutely nothing
visit the future again, without having done absolutely anything other than observe and guess what...

He'd be viewing a completely different future!

This is using physics laws as they are understood today. Perhaps they could change, but I'm not holding my breath. This, translates to this universe not being deterministic, which is cool. But if that is indeed the case, if the universe is not determined somehow, by say some absolute physical laws not built around probabilities and uncertainty, how in what whargarbl does your god know the future?

So, again, how can he know something that is not/cannot be determined? It's a basic prerequisite.


Related but aside to this, you've still not addressed this*

me:
For instance, assuming you somehow had this knowledge of the future and did all you could to change it, you would fail. So would the omniscient as well actually, else he'd be wrong.

You try below, but you fail

striktlymi:

Let's take a computer as an example (though less than appropriate but just work with me here). Given that a computer is programmed to work in a particular order to the extent of making seemingly 'intelligent' decisions given some set parameters just as the designer wants, it can be said that the actions of this computer has been predetermined and what it does is not really making decisions but doing what the designer wants.

Now in the case of this computer, there is nothing like a freedom of choice cause there is no such thing as an infinite number of possible choices but rather what we have is a number of choices that has been hardwired into this computer by the designer. In other words, the computers choices are exactly the designers choices.

Designer could build code and have hardware based on uncertainty, which is truly random. Indeed, truly random number generators have been built. This is, personally for me, how I think this universe's free will/determinism works. It is determined, but built around truly random uncertainty. Let's ignore this though, just stating it to highlight other options

you:
It is easy to see at a glance that this computer has nothing like free will, it's every action and responses are known to the designer but the trick is...the computers free will is not impaired because the designer knows what it will do but because the designer has made his own choices that of the computer.

And again, the programmer need not be conscious. For instance, mathematical laws alone can [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life]'evolve'[/url], in all sorts of manners.

Also, again, the program has no free will to impair in the first place, that is all that matters. The program needs to be determined/determinable before the programmer can tell you infallibly what the future would be. The programmer's action's as well have to be determinable actually.

you:
Um...the answer would be YES! But you left out one small detail...we are not talking about making predictions here. Omniscience and prediction have a meeting point but they are not exactly the same.

Correct. I wouldn't even say there's a meeting point, as the omniscience you're talking about cannot be wrong, regardless of any factors whatsoever. This is what kills your case.

you:
Let's see if this example will help...

A child is born to a man and this man can see the future...

The man saw that his son will be admitted into LSE at age 10...

The man worked hard to get enough money to sponsor this child pending this seen future...

The child studied hard without having a clue what his future is...

The child did well in school and merited an admission into LSE...

Do we now conclude that this father manipulated the son's future by just knowing about it? If we are to accuse the man of manipulation then we need to demonstrate that this man has used his know how to influence the son's decisions and every actions leading to his admission.

And this is where you fail to address the issue marked (*) above. The father, again, need not manipulate. He has no power to manipulate. It would be beyond his means because the future is fixed, it must occur as foretold.

The man had no choice but to do all the above, work towards his son's admission, else his vision would be wrong. Simple. If upon seeing this vision he went back and worked towards his son going to another university or another future, then he very, very, VERY, clearly wasn't infallible, or was he? As his vision would have been wrong. They both would have no choice in the matter.

you:
Disagree!

Not determined!

The case of the computer is a predetermined future but that of man is not.

Well...

you:
I have really! I even slept on it and still I don't think your position is right as regards this matter.

It is. Everyone's entitled to their opinions of course, but you're wrong and even worse, dreadedly, illogical

How do you like being branded with that dirty word, hmmm, my fellow NT?


this is a bit rushed, but it should do as a reply

wiegraf: Aha!



Not arguing for ooman. Barely read through the thread even (sadly, being an adult sucks), more like skimmed through.



And so long as he interacted with us, he would have no free will himself as well. As he must know about all his future actions pertaining to us as well, and go through with them.

Now, the bolded bit makes no sense because....what free will? There wouldn't be any free will for god to interact with.



The bolded, I must have missed that because you have not shown that, not at all. Please show me exactly where you do that.




First off, I've already shown that man's future would have to be determined if an infallible omniscient exists as -
- How do you figure out something that isn't determinable?
- How could an infallible omniscient be wrong?

And why should I show that man's future is determined? I am not making that claim, and this is a hypothetical discussion. It's about if's and "1 + 1's". This if in particular; If an infallible omniscient exists, then free will cannot exist.




There wouldn't be any free will to impair in the fist place, he wouldn't have had a choice but to follow the predetermined path else the omniscient would be.... wrong....

Also, again, read my immediate above. Elaborating on that further, how do you know something without determining it?

Not enough time, but let's look at time travel and some of the issues that entails, this could perhaps help you. This is all hypothetical (people seem to miss this, I'm tired of having to state this as it should be obvious, no? Perhaps I'm wrong).

Now, assuming you say god knows the future via time travel, then a determined universe need not necessarily exist, but god isn't infallibly omniscient. Not at all. He goes forward, sees what happens, but it's still just one of many possible futures, he does not know which will take place or what will happen until he actually travels to the future. That isn't omniscient, or is it?

If he goes back in time, alters a few things, to confirm his changes he would now have to travel back to the future (remember he's using time travel) to find out which future takes place. Again, that isn't infallably omniscient, or is it? He does not know what future will take place till he goes to see it.

There are other complications with this, for instance,

-what happens to all those people in the changed future, do they just never exist? Once he has gone to that future, those people have existed. The people in that future universe had lives and what not, that universe has stars, matter etc, all that existed. When he goes back, what happens, it never happened? Imagine if someone went back in time and altered the past of our current universe. That would mean we never existed? This is all multiverse related stuff though.

-this ignores uncertainty, which is truly random. Time has no say on uncertainty. Hypothetically, if you could go back in time and repeat the exact same action, using the exact same matter (not really possible, considering work and entropy, but you get the gist), at the exact same time, you would get different results! Now, uncertainty's issues are usually only drastic at the quantum level, but combine that with chaos theory, and you can see the implications. In essence, even if time travel were possible,

God could travel to the future, do absolutely nothing,
go back, do absolutely nothing
visit the future again, without having done absolutely anything other than observe and guess what...

He'd be viewing a completely different future!

This is using physics laws as they are understood today. Perhaps they could change, but I'm not holding my breath. This, translates to this universe not being deterministic, which is cool. But if that is indeed the case, if the universe is not determined somehow, by say some absolute physical laws not built around probabilities and uncertainty, how in what whargarbl does your god know the future?

So, again, how can he know something that is not/cannot be determined? It's a basic prerequisite.


Related but aside to this, you've still not addressed this*



You try below, but you fail



Designer could build code and have hardware based on uncertainty, which is truly random. Indeed, truly random number generators have been built. This is, personally for me, how I think this universe's free will/determinism works. It is determined, but built around truly random uncertainty. Let's ignore this though, just stating it to highlight other options



And again, the programmer need not be conscious. For instance, mathematical laws alone can [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life]'evolve'[/url], in all sorts of manners.

Also, again, the program has no free will to impair in the first place, that is all that matters. The program needs to be determined/determinable before the programmer can tell you infallibly what the future would be. The programmer's action's as well have to be determinable actually.



Correct. I wouldn't even say there's a meeting point, as the omniscience you're talking about cannot be wrong, regardless of any factors whatsoever. This is what kills your case.




And this is where you fail to address the issue marked (*) above. The father, again, need not manipulate. He has no power to manipulate. It would be beyond his means because the future is fixed, it must occur as foretold.

The man had no choice but to do all the above, work towards his son's admission, else his vision would be wrong. Simple. If upon seeing this vision he went back and worked towards his son going to another university or another future, then he very, very, VERY, clearly wasn't infallible, or was he? As his vision would have been wrong. They both would have no choice in the matter.



Well...



It is. Everyone's entitled to their opinions of course, but you're wrong and even worse, dreadedly, illogical

How do you like being branded with that dirty word, hmmm, my fellow NT?


this is a bit rushed, but it should do as a reply

Will attend to this...*play mode already activated*...so my binoculars is nowhere to be found

You are one skimmer...yes you are! So I must read with my binoculars!!!

Ihedinobi:

Refer to my analogy with the football. If time is a line running along the inner surface, God Himself is the ball. And that line begins and ends somewhere definite. So He doesn't follow the sequence. All the events are in the present for Him. You don't like that, throw it all in the trash for all I care.

Top of the morning to you too. Hope you have a good day. I'm just being an insomniac tonight.

See you when I see you.

I think your god is a website designed by you. You know your god so well you even compare him to a ball... Very good!

You are responsible for your actions,don't blame it on any God(whoever he/she is)

striktlymi:

Oh thou child of mischief...you still have the impudence to dishonour the flying spaghetti monster?

no, i meant a flying pig. Sue me

ooman:

no, i meant a flying pig. Sue me

I leave you at the mercies of your spaghetti monster

striktlymi:

I leave you at the mercies of your spaghetti monster

my flying monster doesnt care if i refer to another deity. He is not monster yahweh

ooman:

my flying monster doesnt care if i refer to another deity. He is not monster yahweh

...and why do you think spaghy baby is referred to as a monster? Delusion!!!

^^^ah. probably as an equal with yahweh. definitely not because he is as evil as yahweh.

ooman: ^^^ah. probably as an equal with yahweh. definitely not because he is as evil as yahweh.

Hmmm...but you know Yahweh not? How then is this comparison possible?

striktlymi:

Hmmm...but you know Yahweh not? How then is this comparison possible?

but the bible contains complete knowledge about yahweh and that is how I know yahweh or is the bible not complete anymore.?

ooman:

but the bible contains complete knowledge about yahweh and that is how I know yahweh or is the bible not complete anymore.?

Quote me! Sacred scriptures does not contain a complete knowledge about God!!!

striktlymi:

Quote me! Sacred scriptures does not contain a complete knowledge about God!!!

God's word, revealed by him, about hhim, does not contain complete knowledge about him! great.

striktlymi: Good morning Mazaje,

I am of the opinion that your thoughts above are on point...so many things are meaningless; how can a Universe just emerge out of nowhere?...how come the Earth is round and not rectangular or flat?...so many meaningless things but the fact that we have no idea why these are does not make them any less the truth.

The truth always stands out, and many things can be falsified. . .Any thing that can be falsified seizes to become the truth any more. . .

Omnipotence should answer that question I believe! Think of it this way...an inventor invents a computer and made a virtual world where everything in that world is subject to something close to time without he himself being subject to it...if this inventor has the ability of being part of that virtual world and decides to go in there to interact with his creations, does that mean he necessarily is subject to the computer time?

Yes he is subject to the computer time as long as he enters into the virtual world and operates under that time. . .Even god is bound by time, if you read the bible, he created the universe according to the bible in 6 days and rested in the 7th day. .What does that tell you?. . .It shows that he is bound by time. . .If you red the book of revelation, you will see where the writer talks about time spent in heaven. . .The problem is that you guys are arguing against things that are already written inside the bible

Note that the fact that some things seem logically incompatible now does not mean that they will remain outside the sphere of logic forever...some millenia ago, who could have thought it logically possible for man to fly in the air or be in the sea for months without drowning?

There are some things that are just impossible. . .Like a square circle or a married bachelor. . .How can one be a married bachelor?. . .Some of the attributes you guys ascribe to your god are logically impossible. . .For example god is perfect is said to be perfect, yet he created human beings in his own image and likeness that are imperfect. . .Or god is said to be all god, and merciful yet we have him doing evil in the bible acknowledging that he did evil and apologizing for it. . .

What defines impossibility for us really has something to do with what humans have decided makes sense for them...trust me, if the concept of married bachelor is espoused and developed, giving it meaning over time and becomes generally accepted, you will definitely find that concept in the lexicon before a thousand years is over; and it would make perfect sense for us then.

Based on what we know and how we give meaning to things, a married bachelor is impossible. . Its either you are married or you are a bachelor, you can not be both at the same time. Lets not get into the world of anything goes please. . .

I am quite impressed with your thought process...they seem to be very much on point. Why haven't I been conversing with you when it would make good sport for me...

Now let's put this in proper perspective...shall we?...

Emotions can be defined thus:

e·mo·tion
/iˈmōSHən/
Noun
1. A natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.

2. Any of the particular feelings that characterize such a state of mind, such as joy, anger, love, hate, horror, etc.

If we go with the following definitions then we can see at a glance that emotions really have little to do with the feelings we exhibit but on the manner in which we exhibit such feelings. For instance, when an individual pretends to cry, we can't say that that individual is being emotional.

The simple reason would be that emotions has to do with the natural inclination of the mind to exhibit such feelings instinctively...it needs not be forced or induced. I know that example is quite hollow but work with me on this:

When a child you love steals from you but you really are not angry (in the sense that you are not moved instinctively to demonstrate your feelings) but know that you need to punish the child anyways for what he did...you tell the child that he is grounded for a month, just saying.

Would it be inappropriate to say that you were angry with the child to demonstrate what just transpired between you and that child? Or do you think it would be out of place for that child to tell his friends that he can't steal any more because his father would be angry with him?

The dad obviously did not react due to his emotions but the simple fact that his actions tend to suggest so would make everyone think otherwise. The same can be applied to God. He need not act out of emotions but his justice, mercy etc can be mistaken for emotions like anger, compassion etc.

Only that in the bible god is said to be angry and does or says thing very angry people do. . Like curse people and tell them that he will send their enemies to pillage their lands, rapeeee their women and dash the heads of their kids against the rock for disobeying him. . .Sometimes he gets very surprise at people's actions. . .Its all there in the bible, i use the bible as the basis of what I say about god not some abstract talk. .I notice apologist don't like using the bible when talking about god, they just throwing the bible under the bus while attacking a straw man or engaging in abstract arguments. . .The bible is there for all to read and know how the god it talks about operates. . .

Good evening Mazaje,

Sorry I am attending to this now...I have actually been playing somewhere else . Though I don't have my binoculars yet but let me see how best I can respond to your beautiful logic...

mazaje:

The truth always stands out, and many things can be falsified. . .Any thing that can be falsified seizes to become the truth any more. . .

I agree that the truth always stands out but to the extent that it comes to light! You are right that many things can be falsified but definitely wrong when you say anything that can be falsified seizes to become the truth.

Now, the fact that some persons can falsify the American dollar does not make the actual dollar false. Some people are masters of impersonation...does this make the real person false? So my dear Mazaje, I do not agree that when something can be falsified then that stuff seizes to be true.

mazaje:
Yes he is subject to the computer time as long as he enters into the virtual world and operates under that time. . .

That is only true as long as he is part of his creation but when he is out of the computer, he seizes to obey the rules of time. When God became man in Christ, he was within the laws of time but not when he is 'outside the world'.

mazaje:
Even god is bound by time, if you read the bible, he created the universe according to the bible in 6 days and rested in the 7th day. .What does that tell you?. . .It shows that he is bound by time. . .If you red the book of revelation, you will see where the writer talks about time spent in heaven. . .The problem is that you guys are arguing against things that are already written inside the bible

I have mentioned a number of times to ooman that Sacred scriptures should not be taken like just any book. One needs guidance to read and understand it. It really shouldn't be read like any other text book...this would be an improper way to read it...

When it is written that God created everything in 6 days, this does not mean literally that God finished creation in just 72 hours. Far from it. Since you want us to go the bible way (as you said: we argue against what is already written) I will give you the following passage of sacred scriptures:

2 Peter 3:8
New International Version (NIV)
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Peter brought to light what is already known by the Israelites from time immemorial which reiterates what the psalmist has to say in Psalm 90:

Psalm 90:4
New International Version (NIV)
4 A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

Thus when time is attributed to God, it really doesn't necessarily mean that God is bound by time as we are.

mazaje:
There are some things that are just impossible. . .Like a square circle or a married bachelor. . .How can one be a married bachelor?. . .Some of the attributes you guys ascribe to your god are logically impossible. . .

I guess you are still allowing yourself to live in a world where everything is static and no 'change' can occur. Before humans came to know about parthenogenesis, I believe there are some who believe that growth and development of embryos cannot occur without fertilization but today that line of thought has been proven wrong.

The fact that we do not know any better now, does not mean that it is impossible. Is parthenogenesis logical without proof? I don't think so! This is one area that has to be proven before one can accept it logically. There are some other things that defy logic but are observable in nature today.

mazaje:
For example god is perfect is said to be perfect, yet he created human beings in his own image and likeness that are imperfect. . .

What exactly do we call perfection or imperfection? The following can be said to define perfection:

per·fec·tion
/pərˈfekSHən/
Noun
1. The condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects.
2. A person or thing perceived as the embodiment of such a condition, state, or quality.

"...free from all flaws or defects"...hmmm...if I made a three wheel vehicle could that be said to be imperfect if indeed I intended it to be that way? Or can it be said that an engineer, who set out to build a car and ended up building an aircraft, has developed something perfect?

The point I am trying to develop here is that, perfection is actually a relative term. What might be perfect to me might actually be imperfect to you. If for instance a man is born with just one leg which is not due to any mistake made by the parents...do we say that the man is born imperfect?

What makes us believe that having just one leg is imperfect while having two legs is perfect? If two legs is perfect, why can't three or four legs be perfect for a human being? Mazaje, I don't think we should be the one to determine what perfection is for someone else.

Anyways, sorry for the rather boring analysis...the crux of the matter really is that when they say that man is made in the image and likeness of God, we really are not referring to the human body. God is a spirit and is not made up of flesh and blood as we are.

We resemble God in our souls only and not our bodies. For the soul, there is nothing like deafness, dumbness etc. I know that you may not believe in the soul but I do and it is here we resemble God and not our bodies.

mazaje:
Or god is said to be all god, and merciful yet we have him doing evil in the bible acknowledging that he did evil and apologizing for it. . .

What do we tag as evil? The answer that comes to mind might be something very immoral or wicked. What then constitute a wicked act? If I make a car for myself and decide to dump this car in the middle of the Ocean, would you consider that evil? I think not! The only thing you might say is that this guy is very stupid.

May be that example is very inappropriate considering the fact that cars are not alive by our standards. Now if that car happens to be a beautiful tree at the centre of my backyard? If I cut this tree down, can I be said to be wicked? Have in mind that this tree is alive and breathing.

If this tree can talk, would it accept being cut down or not? Of-course it would have none of that! The point is, I won't be considered to be a wicked person. Now, just act like you believe in God for one second...I know it's hard but just pretend...*I promise not to tell anyone*

Since we are now on the same page; God is the creator of everything and everyone in the world. He owns us just like a child owns a new bicycle (may be not exactly) but he owns us all the same. He decides to destroy (or kill if you like) some of his creatures, just like we can decide to kill a tree even though we did not create the tree; I guess we will say this is wicked and unfair of God? But it is not wicked for man to cut down the tree?

mazaje:
Based on what we know and how we give meaning to things, a married bachelor is impossible. . Its either you are married or you are a bachelor, you can not be both at the same time. Lets not get into the world of anything goes please. . .

Refer to my earlier comments...but the truth is, almost anything goes in this world if we give it enough time.

mazaje:
Only that in the bible god is said to be angry and does or says thing very angry people do. . Like curse people and tell them that he will send their enemies to pillage their lands, rapeeee their women and dash the heads of their kids against the rock for disobeying him. . .Sometimes he gets very surprise at people's actions. . .Its all there in the bible, i use the bible as the basis of what I say about god not some abstract talk. .I notice apologist don't like using the bible when talking about god, they just throwing the bible under the bus while attacking a straw man or engaging in abstract arguments. . .The bible is there for all to read and know how the god it talks about operates. . .

I believe I have addressed the above concern either here or in my previous post to you!


Thank you!

ooman:

God's word, revealed by him, about hhim, does not contain complete knowledge about him! great.

Yes, Sacred scriptures does not contain a complete knowledge about God. Quote me!

striktlymi:

Yes, Sacred scriptures does not contain a complete knowledge about God. Quote me!

Epic fail

Logicboy03:


Epic fail

Person never write exam hin don dey fail? I laugh in Agenebode!

Logicboy03:



lol....if you pause every event and start it sometime later. Wouldnt there be a time lapse between starting and stopping? The only way to stop time would be to destroy our universe. Even at that, there might be other universes with time, so it may or may not work.

It would be like trying to remove all energy from our universe. You cant, just like time is not stoppable/removable in our universe.

Your ignorance on basic science is outstanding

Right, iddiot prince, how do we discern, appreciate or measure this time lapse?

You didnt even make a point here. Just abuse. Why are you questioning what you did? You reduced time to a flow of events meaning a linear flow of progression. You also dubiously related it to a line around a sphere and equator. The equator is an imaginary line.


You are silly.

Lord Dumb, the question was "what does it mean to reduce time to a timeline"? You said the words and I'm asking you to explain them. I don't believe I said anything like these words and I need to see what you mean by them before assenting to the claim that it is what I did in fact do or rejecting it.

How does one use time while being outside of it? How does one work for 6 days or periods and rest for one without being subject to time?

Even if God is not subject to time, the main point was that he has to operate within time within our universe. Lets assune tat God can go into the future and past- the explanation would be like using a time-travel machine. Even at using a time travel machine, one would still be subject to time because the being is only traversing through time not outside it. Going to the past is only reversing time, you are still making use of time measurements to go back to a year in time.

You did see the analogy with the writer and the book, did you not? Feel free to indicate where the writer "goes into the timeline of the book".

[size=14pt]
Now that I have explained and explained why God being outside time is foolish and I see that you have avoided the issues of god not having memories if he is outside time, you must tender your explanation how it is possible to be outside time and have memories or succeeding thoughts, and also what it means to be outside time or else, SHUT THE F4CK UP. DATS ALL. ASK MY OGA AT THE TOP FOR MORE CLARIFICATIONS[/size]

Ooman decided to prove me wrong about how poor your intellect is compared to others around these parts, but I did indeed find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that someone could be dumber than you but na koro koro I see am or else I for no believe am.

Consider what you said above. You claim to have explained and yet your explanations are not answering questions thrown at them and you are not showing that the questions are not suited to the explanations. But you feel obliged to tell me to shut up. Why get in the fray if you don't have the stamina to outlast the fight?

God can not be outside time. Your bible never shows so and physics negates that. Infact, your bible shows God to be consistently operating within time.

The Bible doesn't? How so? God calls Himself I AM, Jesus is said to to be unaffected by the passage of time, He is the same yesterday, today and forever. God refers to Himself as the Start and Stop of Time, in other words, time is subject to His Will. But somehow your own reading of the Bible does not capture that? But there's little in that to be surprised about really. As dull as you are, any effort to read anything is actually laudable.

About physics negating it, I am wondering if you're refering to the nonsense you've been saying about time being like the air in a ball. Are you? If you are, it is quite presumptuous of you to say that considering that your hypothesis has yet to be accepted and is still under study.

Your analogy of A writer is false and silly. The world of the writer does not exist. Fail. It is only ink on paper. A better but flawed example would be a game developer (although the videogame world still is fictional). The game developer iis not bound by the rules of the videogame universe. However, here is an interesting fact; THE GAME DEVELOPER AND TE CHARACTER IN THE VIDEOGAME UNIVERSE ARE BOTH BOUND BY TIME; THE DEVELOPER BY TIME IN THE REAL WORLD AND THE GAME CHARACTER BY SEQUENCES IN THE CODING OF THE GAME. There are constraints in any system. This is why omnipotence is impossible and so is being outside time. Time is a universal constraint.

Let's work with that then. I assume that in your analogy, the developer represents God and the game characters represent us. I understand also the "sequences" you spoke of to mean representations of time within the game reality, that is, the interpretation of realtime to the game charaacters.

That being so, is it your opinion that the developer is subject to those sequences the characters are subject to?

Seeing everything at once does not make any difference, modal logic is always linear. If your god can not reason linearly, he doesnt exist. He is not an intelligent being.

You can process a billion things at once but each process is going to be linear.

Example;

John is a medical doctor >>> Therefore he went to university >>> Therefore he had class mates.

There is no way in the world that such reasoning wont be linear or sequential. There is no sequence without time. Without time, your God can not reason like this. I am better than your god.

Let's consider a possibility.

In one single instant,

- I know that John is a medical doctor.

In the self-same instant,

- I know that he went to the university.

In the same instant,

- I know that he had classmates.

Now, can you draw my reasoning out in a diagram and show that it is linear?

Every christian tat becomes an atheist was actually a false christian? Lol...lololol...lmao.....Congrats, you have achieved a new level of foolishness.

But of course. Can you show how they weren't?

A christian is a child of God. That's the definition. Thus He has the same life that God does. If God cannot die, neither can the Christian. One cannot say at any point that his Christianity has died unless it was never there to begin with.

However, look at it another way. A number of you claim to have acquired Christianity either as a heritage or as a culture or as a philosophy. Fine, but then, the question is, is Christianity a heritage, culture or philosophy? If it is those things, then of course you were Christians. If it isn't, then you were not.

So we need to be sure what Christianity is. But whom do we ask? The origin of the concept, right? Yes, if we can find it, I think you'll manage to agree. Well, what is the origin? The Bible, not so? For all the trouble you may have with the Christian's Bible, it is to it that you owe the existence of the concept of Christianity, no?

And it says, "he that hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his". Pretty simple, I think. If one does not have the Spirit of Christ, they're not a Christian, according to the Bible. If you say that the Bible is a lie, then you also say that there is no such thing as Christianity for you to have ever been one.

If you argue that Christians made up the Bible and thus made up the definition, "having the Spirit of Christ", then you are stating that such a thing is a lie, a falsehood and thus there are no such things as Christians. Again, that destroys your claim to having ever been a Christian.

Judas could not nullify Jesus foreknowlegde.Jesus foreknowledge nullified Judas's freewill. The foreknoweldge of an omniscient being is binding. (Jesus is God or at least Jesus got his propecy from God- whichever camp ur from)


God saying that you will die tommorow is no different from him knowing that you will die. Both will have the same result.

I'm still waiting on you for proof that God's knowledge of the future is such as you're describing. Because if my own "theory" is correct, then God did not forecast anything to which anybody is bound.

Matter of fact, this is what you did on davidylan's thread - beat up a theory until even its grandchildren died without succeeding at showing how it was a valid argument at all. Swear it if you want on all things you hold sacred as many times as you please and until the black goes off your face and if it isn't true that omniscience and free will contradict, they still won't contradict.

Ihedinobi:

Right, iddiot prince, how do we discern, appreciate or measure this time lapse?

lol....finally, Ihedinobi has broken down! Note that you had nothing to say other than to ask the most silly question ever. You are so ignorant not to realise that we measure time lapses all the time. Let's say that I stopped time and counted up to ten and then restarted time. The time lapse is ten seconds.

How was this your one-liner question enough as a repsonse to my whole paragraph? If my argument has defeated yuou why not shut up or ignore it and move on? Stop the foolish questions or one-liners when you are stumped.

Ihedinobi:
Lord Dumb, the question was "what does it mean to reduce time to a timeline"? You said the words and I'm asking you to explain them. I don't believe I said anything like these words and I need to see what you mean by them before assenting to the claim that it is what I did in fact do or rejecting it.

Did I not explain how you reduced time into a timeline? Is this the new thing? Deny and anonynize? Here is the explanation again.

You didnt even make a point here. Just abuse. Why are you questioning what you did? You reduced time to a flow of events meaning a linear flow of progression. You also dubiously related it to a line around a sphere and equator. The equator is an imaginary line.

please, if you dont have anything to say stop denying simple facts in my comments, just move on.

Ihedinobi:
You did see the analogy with the writer and the book, did you not? Feel free to indicate where the writer "goes into the timeline of the book".

How does this in anyway count as a reply to God consistently using time in the bible (6 period creationism, prophecies etc)? Or how does this count as a reply ton my paragraph?

How does one use time while being outside of it? How does one work for 6 days or periods and rest for one without being subject to time?

Even if God is not subject to time, the main point was that he has to operate within time within our universe. Lets assune tat God can go into the future and past- the explanation would be like using a time-travel machine. Even at using a time travel machine, one would still be subject to time because the being is only traversing through time not outside it. Going to the past is only reversing time, you are still making use of time measurements to go back to a year in time

WTF? The writer analogy is useless. I have pointed it out that the book has no world or no real characters just ink on paper.

Ihedinobi:
Ooman decided to prove me wrong about how poor your intellect is compared to others around these parts, but I did indeed find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that someone could be dumber than you but na koro koro I see am or else I for no believe am.

Ad hominem smh

Ihedinobi:
Consider what you said above. You claim to have explained and yet your explanations are not answering questions thrown at them and you are not showing that the questions are not suited to the explanations. But you feel obliged to tell me to shut up. Why get in the fray if you don't have the stamina to outlast the fight?

Guy, stop this denial. I have clearly explained why one can not have memories without time seeing that past and preceeding thoughts can not exist without time. Sequences can not exist without time and so does causality. I havce stressed that these are reason why it is senseless to be outside time.

Please if you have no arguments or reply, dont just claim nonsense. My explanations are in defense of my claims not your questions (which question did you even ask on being outside time that was left unanswered?).

Ihedinobi:
The Bible doesn't? How so? God calls Himself I AM, Jesus is said to to be unaffected by the passage of time, He is the same yesterday, today and forever. God refers to Himself as the Start and Stop of Time, in other words, time is subject to His Will. But somehow your own reading of the Bible does not capture that? But there's little in that to be surprised about really. As dull as you are, any effort to read anything is actually laudable.

About physics negating it, I am wondering if you're refering to the nonsense you've been saying about time being like the air in a ball. Are you? If you are, it is quite presumptuous of you to say that considering that your hypothesis has yet to be accepted and is still under study.

See this guy. The bible never says that God is outside time. "Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and forever" is quite metaphorical. Literally, Jesus aged. He grew old. Jesus was inside time. Clearly, it was referring to his "goodness" and "holiness" that remained the same. Funny how you bible pushers shout "context" and cant even get the right context.

God said that he is the beginning and the end in the bible. That clearly means that he is subject to time. There is no beginning and end without time.

The bible never clearly says that God is outside time. Never. God created the world in six periods, he made prophecies, he made sequential convenants, he punished future generations...etc....consistenly using time in the bible.


Please, keep denying the obvious.

You have yet to explain how something can exist outside time because nothing so far in science or this universe can do that. For you to even claim that my statements that God cant exist outside time is laughable, you must be really insane. Science is on my side. Basic logic is on my side. Existence is based on time. How the hell can you even type the nonsense you are typing and claim that I am typing nonsense?

Guy, you need to stop debating nonsense.

Ihedinobi:


Let's work with that then. I assume that in your analogy, the developer represents God and the game characters represent us. I understand also the "sequences" you spoke of to mean representations of time within the game reality, that is, the interpretation of realtime to the game charaacters.

That being so, is it your opinion that the developer is subject to those sequences the characters are subject to?

Yawn,

1) Like I earlier said the game world is fictional, and as a result, such analogies (including your failed writer) are useless.

2) Both the developer and game character are contrained by time. Coding is sequential....both of them are affected by the sequential coding of the game. The developer must put his codes in sequence and the character must obey the coding.

Ihedinobi:
Let's consider a possibility.

In one single instant,

- I know that John is a medical doctor.

In the self-same instant,

- I know that he went to the university.

In the same instant,

- I know that he had classmates.

Now, can you draw my reasoning out in a diagram and show that it is linear?

Knowing is not the same as reasoning. I could know all these things at once by glancing at john's lifetime pictures.

Reasoning, on the other hand will always be sequential. I know that John did all these things but if i wanted to explain it os someone or put it on paper, it would come out sequentially as I would explain either from past to present or deductively from present to past.

Knowing is different from reasoning. This simple fact shows how you like to anonynize. Your reply to me was useless. How is modal logic never linear? How is reasoning never linear? Mtchew.

Ihedinobi:
But of course. Can you show how they weren't?

A christian is a child of God. That's the definition. Thus He has the same life that God does. If God cannot die, neither can the Christian. One cannot say at any point that his Christianity has died unless it was never there to begin with.

However, look at it another way. A number of you claim to have acquired Christianity either as a heritage or as a culture or as a philosophy. Fine, but then, the question is, is Christianity a heritage, culture or philosophy? If it is those things, then of course you were Christians. If it isn't, then you were not.

So we need to be sure what Christianity is. But whom do we ask? The origin of the concept, right? Yes, if we can find it, I think you'll manage to agree. Well, what is the origin? The Bible, not so? For all the trouble you may have with the Christian's Bible, it is to it that you owe the existence of the concept of Christianity, no?

And it says, "he that hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his". Pretty simple, I think. If one does not have the Spirit of Christ, they're not a Christian, according to the Bible. If you say that the Bible is a lie, then you also say that there is no such thing as Christianity for you to have ever been one.

If you argue that Christians made up the Bible and thus made up the definition, "having the Spirit of Christ", then you are stating that such a thing is a lie, a falsehood and thus there are no such things as Christians. Again, that destroys your claim to having ever been a Christian.

Who are you to redefine christianity? Anyone that goes to church or reads the bible and claims to follow christ is a christian. End of story.

There is no one definition of christianity. I would like to know on which authority you have ton define a christian. Why should I take your definition over the catholic church or the baptist church? Who are you?

You are becoming as irritating as Goshen. The pompous preacher. Just rememeber how he fell from grace in the fornication thread. He thought that he was the one true interpreter of the bible and all would follow him like sheep.


Your interpretation is just another opinion.

Christians become atheists. It happens. leave it at that.

Ihedinobi:
I'm still waiting on you for proof that God's knowledge of the future is such as you're describing. Because if my own "theory" is correct, then God did not forecast anything to which anybody is bound.

Matter of fact, this is what you did on davidylan's thread - beat up a theory until even its grandchildren died without succeeding at showing how it was a valid argument at all. Swear it if you want on all things you hold sacred as many times as you please and until the black goes off your face and if it isn't true that omniscience and free will contradict, they still won't contradict.

I am not going to argue with your stu.pidity. Simple philosophy and logic tells you that omniscience can not exist with freewill.

You can take it or leave it. Fact will remain true despite your ignorance. I doubt that Anony would argue against such an argument that has backing of both logic and evidence. If even you dont believe me, how could you then argue with 2 different encyclopedias of philosophy, a topic in philosophy and basic common sense that all show thsat freewill and omniscience can not exist?

....

ooman:

If nature is god's design, then your god must be a quack and inept for creating such an imperfect harmful world.

Is that right? I am certain that I have already addressed this by pointing out designed systems run on set parameters. If those parameters alter, so will the output of such systems.

Of course I say that because you will defend the above with appeals to the consequences of glitches in the systems, a tired routine that you are beating senseless with a stick.

The problem with that line of thought is that it was said that god already completed and finished EVERYTHING on earth according to Exo 20v11 which therefore closes the room for the appearance of NEW life forms, but which have been documented.

The very argument that I answered. If God designed creation to continue producing new life forms,it will continue to do so after He has finished creating. Simples. Saying to me again that the Bible said He finished, finalized, completed, bla bla bla EVERYTHING is tantamount to asking me to repeat myself yet again.

Nothing in any of the language you've used disallows God from finishing His work of creation and creation going on to operate as He designed it to, e.g. producing new life forms if he programmed it to do that.

And we are talking about a living god here not an idol and so, the terms "could, if " do not apply.

My friend, are you tired of debating?

And your god couldnt think of a better 'mechanism ' than that which leads to death. He must really be limited in his designs or at least evil.

Again, a nonsense reply.

A fool's reply so the lions system is not designed to kill or the snake's venom not designed to paralyze or kill? your god carefully designed such systems for such purposes (if he did) so what exactly do you mean by the bold?

Perhaps the lion's system was designed like that, perhaps it wasn't. What I have no problem insisting on is that any failure in nature can be accounted for by man's break with God, not necessarily by God's poor design ability or wickedness. Until you can fault that argument, you waste your time saying things like the above.

what exactly do you mean by the rubbish above if a designed system doesn't function well, is it the fault of the sysem or the designer. Dont be dumb!

I don't normally do this and I doubt that I have energy to spend like that, but this response here clearly calls all your show of science a lie and I would gladly exhibit it as evidence of your quackery wherever I find you claiming some kind of scientific expertise.

It is not only in engineering that systems control/control systems is studied in some form. Even in the biological sciences, we learn that changes in the operation of any given system or mechanism forces the system to shift to accommodate them thus altering the output.

What's so hard to understand about that?

quote one single place in the bible where it says god designed life to continue to create itself except that god finished making everything.

And how is this reply not grasping at straws and an effort to confuse issues?

The issue we're debating is if an intelligent designer cannot design a system he's creating to carry on forming, producing or "creating" new things after he's finished creating it. Why do I need to shpw Scriptural evidence that God designed creation to go on producing new things after He finished His work of creation? That's neither here nor there and is the reason I asked if you've grown tired of debating.

Your reply is a fool's reply to denying the obvious by using the term 'if' when refering to a living god who wrote a book that contains both the past and the future. Your own concept of god is made up in your mind.

Like I said, grasping.

then you are indeed dumb

At least, you can still spell the word.

the god that we can see or that which we cant?. Why would any reasonable person fashion his 'destiny ' according to a mythical character? na wa for you ooo!!

Now it's obvious that you're unravelling. What I submitted was an alternative explanation for why there are "mistakes", as you call them, in nature. It is your unproven claim that God does not exist.

You appeal to the existence of these "mistakes" to say that God does not exist and I have shown that they do not nullify the argument for His existence. Rather, they strengthen it.

So circling back to insist that God does not exist is simplu singing "lalalalalala" with your fingers stopping your ears.

story! story!! what is this rubbish?. even a five years old will find fault with this nonsense.

Well, I assume you're older than five even if by only a little bit. So I expect to see gaping holes in my submission any time now.

did a person with a functioning brain write the above? how does man breaking with god affect the amount of rain that falls for example.? dont be an idiot

Well, if man was lord of the material realms, then he was responsible to administer them. Peehaps while he was willingly God's minister for the earth, he could have been learning to rule the forces of nature and harness them to God's purposes, but because he broke, hwhat ability he may have had to rule said forces may have deteriorated so that now it may be imperceptible. Or maybe hebroke with God before he had completed his training in the mastery of the material realms.

Whatever be the case, we know that nature responds a great deal to man's activities. How we use our land, water and vegetation does, to some degree, affect rainfall, in fact. That helps you, I'm sure.

that the story of a designer in nature is dumb and not true.

Ok, I get it. You have seen one thing built from scratch and you have chosen the dishonorable path to break your word.

It's ok. I was sure that you are intolerant of honor, so I didn't quite expect you to really accept the argument for creation when I accepted your challenge and produced the species you demanded.

@Ihe

Whether God is timeless or not.. I wonder if it matters.

- Does he know what we will do before we act? A simple yes or no will do. We as humans have a past. Whether God is timeless or not, the truth is we aren't. If He's before time, then he came before us. Whether God starts, stops or resets time... it doesn't matter as we remain time-bound beings. If our future is present to him, our future still remains our future. You can't have it both ways. We still remain sequential beings. However omniscience with GOD, he knows before we act.. we can not violate his knowledge else he would not be omnsicient.

Simple.

ooman:

how can you say something does not exist without claiming in fact that it doesn't exist.?

Are you sure that it was my post you meant to respond to here?

once you think my flying pig doesn't and dont believe along with me, then we have two opposing sides and burden of proof is on both of us to prove our sides.

Until I CLAIM (note that word, claim, I bolded, italicized, underlined and capitalized it just for you) that your flying pig does not exist, I have nothing to prove to you or anyone concerning its inexistence. I can simply disbelieve you and hold on to whatever private conviction I have about it.

However, if I challenge you, then I must produce arguments for my conviction.

is logic too much for your low capacity brain?

No, logic is a pretty nifty tool for me, I've found. We get on rather well. You, on the other hand, are a shame messing with it. Because of you, iddiot logicboy now has bragging rights, that there's one person who has even more calcified brains than he does.

Honestly could not compute how that could be because lb is so dumb that his brains seem to be completely made out of bone. Perhaps, the difference is that you've got bigger and denser brones than he does.