Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[Hank]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
That doesn't change the fact that you never mentioned it on this forum until after I mentioned it to you. I did a search before I made my comment. Sure, it was sarcastic, but it's also true.

Jack, Jack, Jack. Now you have implied that I am lying to you and hurt my feelings.

Go to my name in the members section and do a search. Go to page 22 and scroll down to a thread I started called "Question for Bob b". On page 4 of that thread, post #60, you will see where I talk about parallax in reference to an even earlier conversation that Bob and I had. This happened long before you and I started picking at each other. I have pasted it below but I know you won't believe it unless you see the origional.

BTW we recently debated the distance to the stars being more than 6k light years. In fact you ridiculed me for bring up the use of parallax to measure the distance. When did you change your mind about stars being more than 6k away?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

No need to apologize, I forgive you. LOL

Steven Holl.

Sounds like you may have read it. If so, did you think it was interesting?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Originally posted by Hank
Go to my name in the members section and do a search.

I've already done a search. It only produced two threads where you mentioned the word 'parallax' -- this one, and 'the amazing machine in the forest.'

Sounds like you may have read it. If so, did you think it was interesting?

Never heard of it before today.

 

[avatar382]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
So? How does that make his free will flawed?



Oh, choosing evil is a flaw all right, but the flaw you're describing doesn't lie in the free will itself, but in the exercise thereof. If a willed being didn't have the ability to choose good or evil, then it wouldn't exactly be free, now would it?



What does perfection have to do with free will? If you can't support your premise, don't expect me to buy your conclusion.

Does God have a free will?

If so, does God have the capability to choose to do evil?

If so, why doesn't he?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by avatar382
Does God have a free will?

I would think so.

If so, does God have the capability to choose to do evil?

He can do whatever He wants.

If so, why doesn't he?

Because He's Holy.

But you haven't answered my question. I guess that means you don't have one.

 

[Hank]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I've already done a search. You've only mentioned the word parallax in two threads, and both times have been since I told you about it in this one.

Jack I think you are you afraid to look:chuckle:

At least everyone can see that you ignore the facts that are right in front of you face, whether talking about post here that are available for everyone to see or the age of the earth.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Originally posted by Hank
Jack I think you are you afraid to look:chuckle:

I did look. Nonetheless, it didn't turn up in my original search. I guess the regular search function doesn't go back very far.

At least everyone can see that you ignore the facts that are right in front of you face, whether talking about post here that are available for everyone to see or the age of the earth.

I haven't ignored any facts. So you've mentioned parallax before. I can admit to being wrong.

 

[Psycho Dave]

Originally posted by August

I am a scientist, and I don't know of any true scientists that accept Occam's Razor as a principle, because it isn't true. It is natural and logical to examine first the simplest explanation for a physical phenomenon, but as often as not it is the wrong explanation. One example is the lift force on a wing. Newton's explanation was the simple logical one. But the correct explanation is far more complicated, involving Bernoulli's principle together with the Kutta-Joukowski condition.

Wait a minute -- Newton's equation didn't really work, though! It was useful to a certain point, but the details never added up, much like Newton's astronomical calculations. When we started colelcting real data from experiments, Newton simply didn't explain it all -- IT WAS INCOMPLETE. That's why we went for Bernoulli, and why astronomers now use much more complex equations to predict the motions of astronomical bodies. The simplest answer THAT EXPLAINS ALL THE VARIABLES is the correct one.

There are other examples in almost any area of science governed by nonlinear equations. A principle that has exceptions - even one - is unreliable.
From another point of view, what is "simple" is often a matter of opinion. You might think that it is simple to model the atmosphere as a set of molecules that are sometimes displaced in the large by various thermodynamics effects, which you can explain in detail, but someone else might think it far simpler just to say, "a spirit moves the leaves on the trees".

No in science. A valid explanation for something HAS TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL OBSERVED VARIABLES. Saying a spirit did it may be simple, but it doesn't explain ANY of the variables we observe.

 

[avatar382]

Because He's Holy.

But you haven't answered my question. I guess that means you don't have one.

God doesn't do evil because he always chooses, of his own free will, to do good. He does this without sacrificing his own free will. Why can't people and angels be like that?

Oh, choosing evil is a flaw all right, but the flaw you're describing doesn't lie in the free will itself, but in the exercise thereof. If a willed being didn't have the ability to choose good or evil, then it wouldn't exactly be free, now would it?

Whether the flaw was in free will itself, or in the excersice thereof is ultimately irrelevant.. the point is, Lucifer was a flawed creation from the get-go. Why did God choose to create a being with a flaw, knowing this flaw would lead to the introduction of evil, futher knowing that the introduction of evil would lead to a world full of suffering?

What does perfection have to do with free will?

A perfect being would always make the right choice when excercising free will. Thus, all of God's creations were made flawed, a situation that is imcompatible with a six-point God. (read my first post for clarification as to what a six-point god is)

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by avatar382
God doesn't do evil because he always chooses, of his own free will, to do good. He does this without sacrificing his own free will. Why can't people and angels be like that?

That's not an answer to my question.

Whether the flaw was in free will itself, or in the excersice thereof is ultimately irrelevant.. the point is, Lucifer was a flawed creation from the get-go.

You don't have a point, unless you can show me how Lucifer was created flawed.

Why did God choose to create a being with a flaw, knowing this flaw would lead to the introduction of evil, futher knowing that the introduction of evil would lead to a world full of suffering?

Again, you're reaching your conclusion by using an unsupported premise.

A perfect being would always make the right choice when excercising free will. Thus, all of God's creations were made flawed, a situation that is imcompatible with a six-point God. (read my first post for clarification as to what a six-point god is)

Not if they were created perfect and then became flawed. Now answer my question, or simply admit that you don't have one.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LightSon
At least you acknowledge that your desire to be "free" is a driving force to your atheistic worldview.

It was not just a personal statement, but one based on human history, and the struggle against all forms of slavery and oppression. Freedom is a driving force in human history.
Humankind is bound to it's own freedom.

An interesting assertion. How you come to that conclusion, without an absolute frame of reference, I do not know. The freedoms traditionally afforded people of my citizenry come from an endowment of the creator.

I would think that the freedom we have as humans does not come from any authority. It would not be real freedom. If freedom was granted to us by an authority, then that same authority can take it away also.

 

[quip]

Originally posted by avatar382
God's own free will always and freely chooses good. Lucifer's free will is not at this state of perfection. A state short of perfection is a flawed state.

If God's perfect free-will always chooses good, doesn't it seem feasable that Satan can have an equally perfect free-will that always chooses evil?
Is Satan's free-will flawed only because he chooses evil over good?......please explain this "flaw".

 

[quip]

Originally posted by avatar382
God doesn't do evil because he always chooses, of his own free will, to do good. He does this without sacrificing his own free will. Why can't people and angels be like that?

avatar,

I understand the point you are making (if you will excuse the aphorism) -- I am simply being devil's advocate here! :devil:

Your argument seems unnecessary though:

It logically follows that God cannot create the perfect human, not in spite of his six-points characteristic but because of them. Ethereal perfection cannot be ascribed to corporeal existence. After all, if God's word is eternal and perfectly sufficient, and a perfect heavenly existence indeed exists, what need would he have to "create" a morally perfect human race (or perfect free-will)? ---- Furthermore, we must question what is it to "create" or "design" something. To "design" something is a contrivance, or a process of a lesser mind to achieve an end result. God is apparently described as having the means to design our universe --- but to what end? Is God a "lesser-god", subject to the whim of an even higher "essence"?

Second where does this "need" or desire of God to make something "in his own image" derive from? After-all what would an all-powerful 'six-point' God have to prove to anyone or anything?

It seems the 'SPG-argument-from-evil' is unnecessary if God is a logically redundant concept.

 

[Hank]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I did look. Nonetheless, it didn't turn up in my original search. I guess the regular search function doesn't go back very far.

I did the same thing several times and didn't find it that way either.

I haven't ignored any facts. So you've mentioned parallax before. I can admit to being wrong.

I don't think that you think much of my opinion Jack but for what it's worth I give you credit for saying so. I've done the same several times here and sometimes it not the easiest thing to do.

 

[ZroKewl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: solar system

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I can admit to being wrong.

Ahhh... but can you admit to being an @sshole? :chuckle:
--ZK

 

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by quip
If God's perfect free-will always chooses good, doesn't it seem feasable that Satan can have an equally perfect free-will that always chooses evil?
Is Satan's free-will flawed only because he chooses evil over good?......please explain this "flaw".

Bottom line is this:

God created everything. If God had not created what he created in the way he created it, then there would be no Evil (which is defined by God).

God, being all-knowing, created something that would turn to evil or be evil or at some point do evil. Being all-powerful, he could have created it in another way or not created it at all. He chose to do this, even though it would lead to something contrary to him being all-good.

IMO, God is not "All Good" the way we think he is. I think he delights in evil. That's why he created it. He really likes sending people to hell for things he knew they would do before he even created them the way he did. He's a good guy.

--ZK

 

[tenkeeper]

a touch of humility
is always
a sign
of a
good
teacher

 

[heusdens]

On Religion

On Religion

On Religion

In religion people make their empirical world into an entity that is only conceived, imagined, that confronts them as something foreign. This again is by no means to be explained from other concepts, from "self-consciousness" and similar nonsense, but from the entire hitherto existing mode of production and intercourse, which is just as independent of the pure concept as the invention of the self-acting mule and the use of railways are independent of Hegelian philosophy. If he wants to speak of an "essence" of religion, i.e., of a material basis of this inessentiality, then he should look for it neither in the "essence of man", nor in the predicate of God, but in the material world which each stage of religious development finds in existence.

p. 172 [MECW p. 160]

The only reason why Christianity wanted to free us from the domination of the flesh and "desires as a driving force" was because it regarded our flesh, our desires as something foreign to us; it wanted to free us from determination by nature only because it regarded our own nature as not belonging to us.

For if I myself am not nature, if my natural desires, my whole natural character, do not belong to myself — and this is the doctrine of Christianity — then all determination by nature — whether due to my own natural character or to what is known as external nature — seems to me a determination by something foreign, a fetter, compulsion used against me, heteronomy as opposed to autonomy of the spirit .

Incidentally, Christianity has indeed never succeeded in freeing us from the domination of desires.

p. 272 [MECW p. 254]

 

[JOHN_IGNATIUS]

Is Allah God? Well, is he?

Is Allah God? Well, is he?

Hi all,
...Just checking in to see if Bob has proved Allah to be the creator of the universe yet.

However, I'm sure the New Agers will benefit the most.

I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but we can only speculate as to what existed prior to the beginning of the physical universe. Likewise, we can only speculate as to what is beyond the edge of the, now expanding, physical universe. Is it just a coincidence that our minds, made of the elements of the physical universe, cannot see past its' own creation? As if our brain is a lens and the physical universe, bookends.

If I try to see farther than my brain will go, am I not bigger than my brain?

Just a thought.

 

[heusdens]

Communists on selfishness and selflessness

Communists on selfishness and selflessness

Communists on selfishness and selflessness

Communists do not oppose egoism to selflessness or selflessness to egoism, nor do they express this contradiction theoretically either in its sentimental or in its highflown ideological form; they rather demonstrate its material source, with which it disappears of itself. The Communists do not preach morality at all.

They do not put to people the moral demand: love one another, do not be egoists, etc.; on the contrary, they are very well aware that egoism, just as much selflessness, is in definite circumstances a necessary form of the self-assertion of individuals. Hence, the Communists by no means want to do away with the "private individual" for the sake of the "general", selfless man. That is a statement of the imagination.

Communist theoreticians, the only Communists who have time to devote to the study of history, are distinguished precisely by the fact that they alone have discovered that throughout history the "general interest" is created by individuals who are defined as "private persons". They know that this contradiction is only a seeming one because one side of it, what is called the "general interest", is constantly being produced by the other side, private interest, and in relation to the latter is by no means an independent force with an independent history — so that this contradiction is in practice constantly destroyed and reproduced. Hence it is not a question of the Hegelian "negative unity" of two sides of the contradiction, but of the materially determined destruction of the preceding materially determined mode of life of individuals, with the disappearance of which this contradiction together with its unity also disappears.

p. 264-5 [MECW p. 247]

(Excerpt from The German Ideology)

 

[Hank]

Re: Is Allah God? Well, is he?

Re: Is Allah God? Well, is he?

Originally posted by JOHN_IGNATIUS
Hi all,
...Just checking in to see if Bob has proved Allah to be the creator of the universe yet.

However, I'm sure the New Agers will benefit the most.

I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but we can only speculate as to what existed prior to the beginning of the physical universe. Likewise, we can only speculate as to what is beyond the edge of the, now expanding, physical universe. Is it just a coincidence that our minds, made of the elements of the physical universe, cannot see past its' own creation? As if our brain is a lens and the physical universe, bookends.

If I try to see farther than my brain will go, am I not bigger than my brain?

Just a thought.

Yeah like when you think about God existing for eternity. That meant he had to exist for an eternity before he created the universe. If that is true the universe could have never been created because eternity never has an end. And what did God do for an eternity before the universe? Or something has to be on the outside of the universe. What’s that and is there an end to space.

I’m getting a B.C. powder.