₦airaland Forum

musKeeto: Religion: Morality defined by the God who wins.



https://www.nairaland.com/1221369/srebrenica-massacre#14721560

Ihedinobi: Uh, why did you bother with that post, wiegraf?

Ihedinobi: [size=40pt]WHY?!![/size]

davidylan: I find this most odd. Its either God doesnt exist or He does and you dont respect Him. You cant have it both ways. I find it funny that those who claim God doesnt exist appear to exhibit the most virulent causeless hatred for His mere name.

InesQor: Finally, I get one answer to my question on the use of English. You do it deliberately / out of spite. Well understood.

Deep Sight: ^^^ I just read the story and I see that the Interior Minister referred specifically to "violent" por.nography. If that is the case (i do not say that it is), then that is an apt step. I have seen violent po.rnography before and I can tell you that there are all sorts of sick and twisted ideas that are a veritable danger to everybody. There is por.nography that deals with se.xual murder, torture, body dismemberment, strangling, and the like. There are people whose se.xual inclinations tend toward such and it is not wise to feed such inclinations (especially for young people - who the minister also specifically mentioned as the target of the law - so i guess pretty much like not allowing minors to buy cigarettes and alcohol, which is normal all over the west). Feeding them helps intensify the desire to commit such acts and this often leads to murder, kidnappings, illegal detention, torture, and other sick and twisted things far removed from the realm of even normal B/DSM.

Haven said that: I would quote a British member of the House of Lords many decades ago, when accused of patronizing pr.ostitutes, he responded in parliament - "Of course it is well known that every decent gentleman has recourse to pr.ostitutes!"

striktlymi: C'mon wiegraf, as I have pointed out before, do you honestly believe that there are no victims involved?? It is my opinion that you are not considering the various scenarios here before arriving at your conclusion. Have you considered why a doctor is barred from the use of narcotics (irrespective of when he/she uses it) but is permitted to use alcohol or/and cigarette at designated times?

striktlymi: The risk of becoming addicted to major narcotics like heroin, nicotine and cocaine is higher than that of alcohol. A doctor who cannot discharge his duties appropriately because of his dependence on drugs, infringe on the rights of his patients to provide proper medical care and as such he can be said to have brought harm to them...Wiegraf, it is known that addiction to any substance can make a man do what he ought not, even bring harm to someone else in order to get a quick fix.

wiki: About 12% of American adults have had an alcohol dependence problem at some time in their life.

striktlymi: Would you consider a government responsible if they permit the use of these highly addictive substances that can lead to the harm of other citizens? If we agree that doctors and possibly pilots should not take drugs, then can a public law be said to be fair if every citizen cannot tap from its provisions?? You argue that the fears of government in placing a ban on narcotics is unfounded but I say that the fears are real considering the rate of addiction.

striktlymi: The kind of regulation you suggest are mainly 'detective'. Good laws should be 'preventive' in my opinion. A law that waits for an act to happen before it reacts cannot be said to be for the greater good. Narcotics are known to numb the senses...a man whose senses are numb cannot be said to be coherent enough to determine what is right or wrong at the time, which in my view renders the laws created purposeless considering that there is nothing like a legal limit for narcotics. The only way to avoid this numbness of the senses is total avoidance, hence the laws in place are in order in my opinion.

striktlymi: Thank you!

Logicboy03: lol...you're one crazy guy.....


You still havent told us if you're German or something......what kind of nigga has a name/username like Weigraff? Where did that come from?

Logicboy03: See what thinking like an paranoid christian who always suspect atheists does to you?


We all talk about our private beliefs here on the religion section. Stop making eba out of a grain of garri

musKeeto:

Logicboy03: A bit excessive?

smh.

greatgenius: lol well if you need me too, then yes I will...I am going to be busy this week due to an upcoming project so if it is a long debate you seek then I won't be able to fully participate .. but will definetly read and discuss with you as time permits..

Logicboy03: I dont believe in god and I wholeheartedly reject Jesus.

So, according to christian theology, I am going to hell. The question now becomes; Are you christians going to be watching us roast in hell while you are in paradise?

If there is only joy in heaven, would you be rejoicing while we are burning? Sounds like sadism to me.

Logicboy03: Sadism. sad

Yet you guys claim to love. Sick christians

uyi: Love doesn't deny the truth whixh is exactly what atheists do. Love demands justice which is exactly what atheists get for going to hell. I will laugh at atheists in hell. They deserve what they get.

cyrexx: I just got this facebook post from a friend and i feel like sharing it..

"God fathered himself by impregnating a virgin without her consent to sacrifice himself to himself to save his creations from his wrath, so they can live forever praising him in heaven and watch unbelievers suffer pain forever. He saved them by telling them to symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically tell him they accept him as their Lord and Saviour, which was necessary because he needed to remove an evil force in their souls that was present in humanity because a rib-woman, made from a dust-man, was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree, which gave her the ability to know right from wrong, and this could have all been prevented if he would have protected the magical tree with a flying, flaming sword and cherubim with each having four faces, four wings and hooved feet.

Makes perfect sense"

uyi: The person who wrote this is a dunce who can't read. God got consent from Mary before impregnating her.

wiegraf: The one about laughing at us from hell was good, but this even better. Especially when taken in context. Long shall it be remembered

greatgenius: ^^^ Lol are you going to say what your problem is son? Can't decipher what you wrote

greatgenius: lol anything the problem god brother..what is your beef now

greatgenius: God doesnt have to do anything to support his omniscience. he already is.. having to do anything to support it means he is not..and that is not possible..and again the outcome cannot be changed violates freewill.. the outcome can always and is always changing..it doesnt violate freewill or omniscient..

greatgenius: lol how? again having no say violates their freewill. it seems like it is a dichotomy but it really is not..

greatgenius: the infinite creator being omniscient is a fact

davidylan: this is quite redundant really. I gave no valid reason for the assertion that omniscience requires timelessness? Perhaps i gave you way too much credit. Forgive me for assuming that an intelligent individual should be able to figure out that being able to know all things (including the future) must require such a being to transcend time.

This is the last time i will engage this non-sequitur.

musKeeto: Desperately searching for anony replacement?

This thread reminds me of that incomprehensible one..

wiegraf: Bound by time means what?

davidylan: first of all... Omniscience means having ALL knowledge including the future. It is not the same as merely predicting the future...
To know the future presupposes that you have SEEN the future - i.e. you are essentially timeless.

wiegraf: To know something does not presuppose your seeing it. That's...well, lol worthy. I know 1 + 1 = 2, no need to see a 1 + 1 to actually to know it equals 2, or that it will be positive, etc. Be clear, really.

Omniscience does not mean 'having' all knowledge, what exactly do you mean? From where I'm sitting, not in that respect, not in this context. Do you know what that implies? It implies the omniscient 'has' you as well, or you may have missed how you're information. Information is knowledge. Having all information means having everything. Including the yet to exist future, you, me, everything. All of it. Omniscience simply means knowing all there is to know, it does not imply your owning or "having" it. We go down that path and you see how even more silly omniscience sounds?

InesQor: Omniscience MUST be expressed outside of time because according to fundamental epistemology, knowledge is progressive. Over time, more is known about an event or abstraction. This means that for one to know all, that one must exist outside time.

InesQor: Well I still think some things will escape you if you're not outside of time. Things that have not yet influenced the experience of the subject matter. e.g. the world trade center attack was an event, and only one who is outside time could make things work in a way based on that information prior to the time it occurred.

Apologies, I have forgotten that I was previously on, and have now exited, this thread. Let me leave the thread to more willing discussants. Won't come back, I promise.

Truce

davidylan: Illogical nonsense.

first of all... Omniscience means having ALL knowledge including the future. It is not the same as merely predicting the future...
To know the future presupposes that you have SEEN the future - i.e. you are essentially timeless.

davidylan: err if you read Inesqor's post... we basically said the same thing. Omniscience must exist outside of time i.e. an omniscient being is not bound by time. What were you reading?

InesQor: This brings us back to Molinism and counterfactuals, which is my belief when it comes to God's omniscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism

Molinists believe that God does not only have knowledge of necessary truths and contingent truths but that God's middle knowledge contains, but is not limited to, His knowledge of counterfactuals. A counterfactual is a statement of the form "if it were the case that P, it would be the case that Q". An example would be, "If Bob were in Tahiti he would freely choose to go swimming instead of sunbathing." The Molinist claims that even if Bob is never in Tahiti, God can still know whether Bob would go swimming or sunbathing.

If it were the case that P, then it would be the case that Q.
ELSE
If it were the case that S, it would be the case that T.
ELSE
If it were the case that M, it would be the case that N.
ELSE
....
etc

I believe God's middle knowledge contains all these counterfactuals. Whichever decision you make, creates an entirely new "universe", and God already has them all analyzed in his omniscience.

InesQor: Omniscience cannot be divorced from being outside time. It is a fundamental definition. Why, you ask?

"Elementary, my dear Watson" as Sherlock Holmes would say. Omniscience MUST be expressed outside of time because according to fundamental epistemology, knowledge is progressive. Over time, more is known about an event or abstraction. This means that for one to know all, that one must exist outside time. Surely it's basic!

InesQor: Another angle:

What if we think of omniscience like a kind of complex formula?

E.g. The formula for the surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2 no matter the radius r. This example is simplistic but, no matter what "r" you choose, the surface area is already known. This does not mean you did not have a freewill in selecting a radius, BUT no matter what radius you choose, my formulaic omniscience already knows where you would be going.

What if there was a being, that theists refer to as God, who has some complex formula of experience, that ALREADY KNOWS how things will end depending on the freewill choices you make? Is this an impossible scenario?

InesQor: A necessary preliminary to analyze this Freewill vs Omniscience problem with regards to a theist's perspective would be to attempt to think outside the confines of space and time. Otherwise this argument is futile.

greatgenius: if it was like that then why should Liverpool even bother to play in the first place..
totenham only wins if they have a will to win bigger than that of Liverpool. Liverpool wins if they have a will to win bigger than that totenham. God is not making the choices for either one of them..

davidylan: Illogical nonsense.

first of all... Omniscience means having ALL knowledge including the future. It is not the same as merely predicting the future...
To know the future presupposes that you have SEEN the future - i.e. you are essentially timeless.

With regard to your monday stuff... i presume you just needed to throw in a joke.



I stopped reading at the highlights... it is apparent that you all read from the same predetermined script, repeating the same baseless canard time and time again regardless of the evidence put before you. Enjoy

musKeeto: Oh my god

davidylan: How is it baseless? How do you know the future if you are bound by time?

davidylan: This is convoluted illogic at best.

Let me repeat the point again...

1. The viewing public sees only one ending
2. that does not mean the director - the big guy behind the scenes who knows the script more than anyone else - did not see other alternate endings had the script been slightly different

So is the case with God and man...

1. We are privy to only one future
2. God knows what different futures we may have had if we made different choices...

But this fact in 1-2 above does not remove the fact that those choices were ours to make in the first instance and were not predetermined by God. Being able to see the future is not the same as determining that future.