I got a few hypothetical questions..

[SnakeLord]

So you are discussing for discussion's sake? With no actual goal in mind?

Yes and no. I am discussing for discussions sake, but there is a goal, and that's to have a discussion.

I dare you to prove that the name you have is truly your real name!

Your dares are worthless, because it isn't my real name.

It doesn't matter. I get this feeling me proving my name to be real doesn't really matter to you either, so was this just discussion for the sake of discussion? It's fun, isn't it?

If you, in advance, decide that you are not going to believe someone, no matter what they do, nothing could make you believe them.

It's not about deciding in advance not to believe someone, it's asking questions when they decide to make an unsupported claim.

It is not of worth to take that it matters to mean that they believe it?

That's what I said. Just because someone has an interest in something, does not mean that they believe in that which they are interested in. I have an interest in Lord of the Rings, but it doesn't mean I believe in orcs and cave trolls. I have an interest in religious history, but that doesn't mean I believe in gods and daemons. Discussion is interesting, we do it all the time, and without doing it we'd probably run into some serious problems. I like religious history, I like discussions... It need not be any more than that.

If religion is something of a certain relevance to you, then you take it seriously and the whole argument isn't yet another discussion there to merely fill the time.

What else do you suggest? I haven't come here to change religious people into atheists. No disrespect, but your life is meaningless to me, as is everyone elses - and I'm sure the same is true in return. I am here to discuss, because discussion is interesting. It need not be religion, it could be star trek, it could be beautiful women, it could be what wine tastes nice, what music a person likes or a million and one other things that we all discuss on a daily basis. You seem to look at it different, and go on to say:

Unless you cherish futility

This is really quite an odd statement. It's almost like you expect the whole world to change every time you ever have a discussion, or that you consider it a failure when you haven't successfully managed to turn someone to your way of thinking after conversing with them. Discussion is interesting - it's not a competition.

 

[water]

Yes and no. I am discussing for discussions sake, but there is a goal, and that's to have a discussion.

Then I ask: Why do you have the goal to have a discussion? What values, preferences have selected discussion to be a worthy goal of one's activity?

Your dares are worthless, because it isn't my real name.

I meant it in this sense: Say that you claim that your real name is Mark Smith (or whatever it is). Now prove it if you can.

It's not about deciding in advance not to believe someone, it's asking questions when they decide to make an unsupported claim.

How do you know they *decided* to make an "unsupported claim"?
Do you think that everything we do is a consequence of a logical and rational decision-making process?

That's what I said. Just because someone has an interest in something, does not mean that they believe in that which they are interested in. I have an interest in Lord of the Rings, but it doesn't mean I believe in orcs and cave trolls. I have an interest in religious history, but that doesn't mean I believe in gods and daemons.

In that case, what we are dealing with is not the *veracity* of the existence of orcs etc., but the *mode* of their existence.
You do believe that orcs exist -- but only in literature and films, "existing in literature and films" is the mode of their existence. If you wouldn't believe in the veracity of their existence, you couldn't be talking about them at all.

Discussion is interesting, we do it all the time, and without doing it we'd probably run into some serious problems.

Why would we run into some serious problems if we wouldn't discuss?
And who exactly would run into some serious problems if he wouldn't discuss?

I like religious history, I like discussions... It need not be any more than that.

Why needn't it be more than that? Why does it suffice for you, as it is?

“ If religion is something of a certain relevance to you, then you take it seriously and the whole argument isn't yet another discussion there to merely fill the time. ”

What else do you suggest? I haven't come here to change religious people into atheists.

Do you believe that what you are doing right now is a meaningful use of time and energy?

“ Unless you cherish futility ”

This is really quite an odd statement. It's almost like you expect the whole world to change every time you ever have a discussion, or that you consider it a failure when you haven't successfully managed to turn someone to your way of thinking after conversing with them.

Hm? I think that those who say that they don't want to change anyone in any way are fooling themselves. Whatever we do, we do it to influence our environment to be in some way or another more comfortable for us.

Discussion is interesting - it's not a competition.

If discussion is part of life, and life is about survival, and survival is about competition, then discussing is about competition.
Unless you wish to challenge the theory of evolution and say that life and survival are not about competition, and that living beings can indeed afford to spend several hours a week (some even a day) in meaningless activities that contribute nothing to their survival chances.

 

[MarcAC]

I would advise those who value their time to stop posting to brick walls... even if in the end it does confirm the substance of your experience through faith and your rationale.

 

[SnakeLord]

Then I ask: Why do you have the goal to have a discussion?

Look, you're completely dragging this off into some endless hole in the ground. Some people enjoy watching TV, some people like playing computer games, some people like playing football. I personally just enjoy discussion. It can be about pretty much anything, and with pretty much anyone.

Of course, all of this detracts largely from the whole reason I posted in the first place. You asked a question, (in massive letters which made me assume you really wanted an answer). You said:

"What does it matter if God knows everything?
What consequences does this knowing everything supposedly have for us?"

To this I responded that it should matter to you, because you'd get up there and he might not even know who you are. It's worth to me is inconsequential because I don't believe in such a being, but to your beliefs in such a being, I would have thought it would matter whether he knows everything or not.

You asked what it matters - which I answered, and you asked what consequence it might have for you - which I also answered.

If you didn't want an answer, why ask the question?

You then questioned whether I believe in god/heaven to which I have said no, and then followed with saying that merely because I mention something such as god, doesn't in any way imply that I believe in such a being.

What values, preferences have selected discussion to be a worthy goal of one's activity?

Umm it's just something interesting to do.. You're trying to look at things as if they must have a specific end product, but it isn't that way for me. When I have sex, it's not to make my wife orgasm, or to pop my load so I can go to sleep, or to take my mind off my stresses or any of that.. It's just a fun thing to do. When I play some music it's not so I can develop better rhythmic awareness, or so I don't have to hear the neighbours arguing, it's just fun. When I drink it's not to get drunk, it's not to get tipsy, it's not for anything other than fun.

Maybe you don't understand this position I have, which would be possible for someone who's entire existence is based upon one big goal. From your very conception - to the day you breathe your last.

I just do whatever I like to do.

I meant it in this sense: Say that you claim that your real name is Mark Smith (or whatever it is). Now prove it if you can.

That happens on a regular basis. As an example, I recently tried to open a new bank account.

However, the comparison is worthless. How could you think a claim of what ones name is, is even remotely connected to claims concerning the supposed existence of a completely undetectable sky being?

How do you know they *decided* to make an "unsupported claim"?

It's on the assumption that there wasn't someone standing behind them, forcing them to make an unsupported claim.

Do you think that everything we do is a consequence of a logical and rational decision-making process?

Nope.

In that case, what we are dealing with is not the *veracity* of the existence of orcs etc., but the *mode* of their existence.

No we're not. What we're dealing with is the claims that a sky being exists when there's nothing to support such a claim.

You do believe that orcs exist -- but only in literature and films

This is a completely pointless statement, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. We're not talking movies here, we're talking actual existence. You know that already, and your diversions are dishonest. god and orcs can exist in books all they want, it's when someone takes them from that book and tries to place them in the real world, that the problem arrives- and that is what we're discussing. I have never debated with someone against the fact that both gods and orcs appear on paper, and I fail to see its worth now, other than to dismiss the point that we're talking about the real world, and not cinema.

Why would we run into some serious problems if we wouldn't discuss?

We're a social species, and too much time spent with nobody to talk to could cause some serious mental issues. That's the way it is.

And who exactly would run into some serious problems if he wouldn't discuss?

Everyone I guess.

Why needn't it be more than that? Why does it suffice for you, as it is?

Hey, just use whatever reason you feel happy with.

Do you believe that what you are doing right now is a meaningful use of time and energy?

Sure I do. I'm waiting for something to download, and it's raining outside. Did you have something else in mind that would be better?

Hm? I think that those who say that they don't want to change anyone in any way are fooling themselves.

Well, that shows you don't know me. Of course that depends upon circumstances. If I was round at a friends house trying to get him off cocaine, then sure, everything I said would be in order to try and change him.. but on a forum with people I don't know from the other side of the world? Who cares? It doesn't stop people discussing, or giving their opinions such as a christian telling me "you're going to hell", or me telling them "your brain is crippled" - but I couldn't honestly care what they think or do.

Whatever we do, we do it to influence our environment to be in some way or another more comfortable for us.

This is a forum I spend 5-60 minutes on a night, not a sofa. It's simple discussion with total strangers, and my environment, (the room with my computer and music playing), is as comfortable as it ever could be.

If discussion is part of life, and life is about survival, and survival is about competition, then discussing is about competition.

You certainly seem to enjoy winding off down an endless, and irrelevant road. How you came from me saying I discuss for fun to asking if I wish to challenge evolution is beyond any sane understanding. What you've said is the same as saying:

Television is a part of life, life is about survival, and survival is about competition, so watching television is about competition.

Have you ever just had a simple discussion?

Unless you wish to challenge the theory of evolution and say that life and survival are not about competition

Well.. we were talking about discussion, not life or survival - and thus this is irrelevant.

and that living beings can indeed afford to spend several hours a week (some even a day) in meaningless activities that contribute nothing to their survival chances.

Of course they can.

 

[okinrus]

Your telling me that over the last 5000 years the two fundamental aspects of God have not been conclusively decided amongst theist?

From what I can tell, a definition consisting of God being able to do something illogical is not widely adopted by theologians.

Issues concerning God's foreknowledge, to my knowledge, have not been fully decided even by the Catholic Church, although certain doctrines are heretical. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

I suspect that God's foreknowledge is beyond our grasp.; Neither Thomas' nor Molinist's theories have any contradiction in them, but I tend to think Molinism to be closest to the truth.

It seems, to me, that just in the discussions we?ve had here that it is impossible for God to do the illogical and from our past discussions in order for ?free will? to exist (lets not go there) all knowing is out the window as well.

Like God's omnipotence specific definitions must be shown to prove a contradiction.Depending on the definition, your free will might not meet your intuitive notion. Of course, given a loose enough definition of free, practically any theory would have both free will and foreknowledge.

If God could to the impossible, then there would already be a contradiction. This definition at face value must have a contradiction; its supporters most likely don't care, perhaps they have relegated logic as a created system. This line argument, however, is beyond rational speculation; for they have already concededed their views irrational. On the other hand, if logic is an attribute of God, not a creation, then God's omnipotence, limited to what is logical, does not contradict his being.

Do you think God changes?

His nature certainly does not change, his knowledge does not change.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: God doesn't exist There is no such thing as God. God is a mystery. Mysteries do not exist. If God existed, then there would be not questions. God simply does not exist.

 

[water]

"Why needn't it be more than that? Why does it suffice for you, as it is?"


Hey, just use whatever reason you feel happy with.

I hope you see what a serious dissonance you have there in the core of your thinking: On one hand, you go against other people when they make "unsupported claims", on the other hand you state that the reason for doing something is arbitrary and such that it pleases one's emotions.

So why shouldn't people make "unsupported claims"? I mean, they go by the rule "Hey, just use whatever reason you feel happy with."

??

And more:

...I am discussing for discussions sake, but there is a goal, and that's to have a discussion.

and:

This is a completely pointless statement, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. We're not talking movies here, we're talking actual existence. You know that already, and your diversions are dishonest. god and orcs can exist in books all they want, it's when someone takes them from that book and tries to place them in the real world, that the problem arrives- and that is what we're discussing. I have never debated with someone against the fact that both gods and orcs appear on paper, and I fail to see its worth now, other than to dismiss the point that we're talking about the real world, and not cinema.

How can anything be

"a completely pointless statement, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything"

if all you are doing is

"discussing for discussions sake, but there is a goal, and that's to have a discussion"

??
Hm? What's the problem?

 

[SnakeLord]

I hope you see what a serious dissonance you have there in the core of your thinking: On one hand, you go against other people when they make "unsupported claims", on the other hand you state that the reason for doing something is arbitrary and such that it pleases one's emotions.

Well then, it's just lucky I have two hands I guess. But you're getting more and more muddled, and more and more irrelevant as each post wafts by. It pleases my emotions to discuss with people who make unsupported claims. Good enough?

And I didn't state the reason for doing something, I stated my reason for doing something. Don't think that instantly applies to the whole of humanity. Other people can do whatever they want.. If they make an unsupported claim, I will often discuss it - because that's what I like to do, and if they just so happen to ask a one off question such as:

"Why does it matter if god knows everything", I will provide an answer just like many other people will. That does not mean I want to get into an irrelevant chat with you. You might ask what the difference is, as I have already said I like discussions. Here is the difference: This is not a discussion, it's a bloody Q&A. I say something, you go whats this, whats that, how, who, where, when, which. I then answer for some reason - but do often point out when your questions are getting irrelevant - to which you lumber me with 100 more irrelevant questions.

I remember when psychology was seen to be somewhat like this. A person would say something, to which all he'd hear in response is "why, when, whats your mother like" etc. Luckily it's a dying trend, and I can only hope you follow suit- especially judging by the last thread we conversed in, where after answering every single question for a week, you then ran away.

So why shouldn't people make "unsupported claims"?

I didn't say they shouldn't, for if they didn't, I'd have one less subject to discuss.

I mean, they go by the rule "Hey, just use whatever reason you feel happy with."

Sure, that happens sometimes.

How can anything be

"a completely pointless statement, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anything"

Because as the post says, we're not discussing movies and story books, but were in actuality, (once upon a time), relating to certain beings that supposedly do exist. You then asked why it would matter, to which I answered your question in full.

Since that time, you've shot off through orcs existing, me challenging evolution, and a tonne of other completely irrelevant questions.

"discussing for discussions sake, but there is a goal, and that's to have a discussion"

Ok, I can see I confused you. That's just a circular statement which goes along the lines of "I discuss to discuss to discuss".

It didn't require a response, I was kinda hoping it would stop the barrage of endless questions. I guess not.

??
Hm? What's the problem?

I'd say you need more question marks, but I'm sure there'll be another 100 in your next post.

However, It does leave me to ask a question of my own:

"What's the problem?"

I answered your question, where does all of this come from? You said "why does it matter" - I've answered it already, yeesh.

 

[nicoman]

You are fake. Your belief is fake. Your religion is fake. Your philosophy is fake. I hate fakers. Die you faker.

 

[water]

Well then, it's just lucky I have two hands I guess. But you're getting more and more muddled, and more and more irrelevant as each post wafts by. It pleases my emotions to discuss with people who make unsupported claims. Good enough?

That's a rather perverted pleasure, and I think I know what's underneath.

And I didn't state the reason for doing something, I stated my reason for doing something. Don't think that instantly applies to the whole of humanity.

Why not? Then you have double standards: For you, it is okay to do whatever you do as long as it "pleases your emotions", but you go against others when they make "unsupported claims" -- even though what they were doing was just pleasing their emotions.

In formal speech: You do A and you consider it alright. Other people do A, and you put it against them. Conclusion: You have double standards, that emerge from your various denials.

"Why does it matter if god knows everything", I will provide an answer just like many other people will. That does not mean I want to get into an irrelevant chat with you. You might ask what the difference is, as I have already said I like discussions. Here is the difference: This is not a discussion, it's a bloody Q&A. I say something, you go whats this, whats that, how, who, where, when, which. I then answer for some reason - but do often point out when your questions are getting irrelevant - to which you lumber me with 100 more irrelevant questions.

They are not irrelevant. You should give me the credit that I too may do things to "please my emotions", just like you, and I can do whatver I want (according to you).

I remember when psychology was seen to be somewhat like this. A person would say something, to which all he'd hear in response is "why, when, whats your mother like" etc. Luckily it's a dying trend, and I can only hope you follow suit- especially judging by the last thread we conversed in, where after answering every single question for a week, you then ran away.

I didn't *run* away: you were being insultive, and I don't talk to people who are being insultive.

“ I mean, they go by the rule "Hey, just use whatever reason you feel happy with." ”

Sure, that happens sometimes.

... but you go by this rule *all* the time. Because you like to discuss.

“ "discussing for discussions sake, but there is a goal, and that's to have a discussion" ”
Ok, I can see I confused you. That's just a circular statement which goes along the lines of "I discuss to discuss to discuss".

No, the truth is that you ARGUE because you want to ARGUE, and you want to ARGUE because YOU WANT TO WIN -- your goal is to win.


Since this motive is not politically correct, neither does it go along with your politically correct "everyone can do whatever they want", you have covered up your real reason with the very politically correct "discuss for discussion's sake".

Simple psychology. Took me only -- what, 30, 40 questions?

However, It does leave me to ask a question of my own:

"What's the problem?"

I answered your question, where does all of this come from? You said "why does it matter" - I've answered it already, yeesh.

This post shuld have answered that, see above.
I figured you out, SnakeLord.

 

[c20H25N3o]

You are fake. Your belief is fake. Your religion is fake. Your philosophy is fake. I hate fakers. Die you faker.

Ah the voice of a man satisfied with his lot

 

[SnakeLord]

That's a rather perverted pleasure, and I think I know what's underneath.

So are: bondage, golden showers, going to church, jumping out of an aeroplane at 10,000 feet, getting a tattoo and so on. You might see it as perverted, but that doesn't really mean anything.

Why not? Then you have double standards: For you, it is okay to do whatever you do as long as it "pleases your emotions", but you go against others when they make "unsupported claims" -- even though what they were doing was just pleasing their emotions.

In formal speech: You do A and you consider it alright. Other people do A, and you put it against them. Conclusion: You have double standards, that emerge from your various denials.

No, I debate the existence of the claimed being, not that persons right to believe in the claimed being, or to make the claim.

Understand yet?

They are not irrelevant. You should give me the credit that I too may do things to "please my emotions", just like you, and I can do whatver I want (according to you).

They are irrelevant. While it might please your emotions to debate completely unrelated and irrelevant matters, it doesn't detract from them being irrelevant.

I didn't *run* away: you were being insultive, and I don't talk to people who are being insultive.

I wasn't being insultive, I was asking you questions, (which you seem to like doing also). For instance: "Are you stupid?" That's a question, not a statement.

It's hardly my fault you're overly fragile.

All that aside, no matter if I was the rudest scumbag on the planet, didn't jesus say to forgive, to love thy neighbour and enemy? To only throw the stone if you are innocent of that which you judge? And so on..

So you'd either be ignoring jesus, or running away.

... but you go by this rule *all* the time. Because you like to discuss.

Obviously not all the time or I'd use the same sentence for every question.

No, the truth is that you ARGUE because you want to ARGUE, and you want to ARGUE because YOU WANT TO WIN -- your goal is to win.

When I "ARGUE", sure. This isn't an argument though, it's a discussion.

Simple psychology. Took me only -- what, 30, 40 questions?

"Simple" "Psychology". Oh I find humour in those two words. Ignore it, personal joke.

This post shuld have answered that, see above.

Eh? What has any of this got to do with whether omniscience matters to god?

I figured you out, SnakeLord.

Why italicize part of my name?

 

[MarcAC]

It is quite incredible, observing on this forum, how "discussions" and "debates" with specific individuals always degrade to squabbles.

 

[SnakeLord]

Many thanks for your worthwhile input.

 

[water]

No, I debate the existence of the claimed being, not that persons right to believe in the claimed being, or to make the claim.

Understand yet?

Uh. You are telling me that the snow is black and that if I see the sun, it must be that it is night.

They are irrelevant. While it might please your emotions to debate completely unrelated and irrelevant matters, it doesn't detract from them being irrelevant.

Uh-ah. Sure, *you* really do *not* come here to "prove" that you are right ...

I wasn't being insultive, I was asking you questions, (which you seem to like doing also). For instance: "Are you stupid?" That's a question, not a statement.

Plausible deniability ........ .

It's hardly my fault you're overly fragile.

Yeah, that, like, hurt, duh.

All that aside, no matter if I was the rudest scumbag on the planet, didn't jesus say to forgive, to love thy neighbour and enemy? To only throw the stone if you are innocent of that which you judge? And so on..

That is cheap, you serpent.
You are trying to make me look bad so that you would look good in comparison.

So you'd either be ignoring jesus, or running away.

I never wrestle a pig. I would get shit all over me and the pig would like it.
I only held you a mirror. And you a trying to paint something on it, instead of letting it mirror you.

When I "ARGUE", sure. This isn't an argument though, it's a discussion.

Nah. And the snow is black, right?

Eh? What has any of this got to do with whether omniscience matters to god?

Diverting attention, huh?

You are the one afraid that God would know everything. You are afraid because you are trying to hide from Him.

I asked you questions, to catch a glimpse of what it is like to know just a little bit more than the polished surface of yours wishes to show -- and I found a snake in the grass.

Why italicize part of my name?

For you to see what you are.

 

[SnakeLord]

Uh. You are telling me that the snow is black and that if I see the sun, it must be that it is night.

No idea where that's come from, or it's relevance to anything here... Are we even in the same thread?

Uh-ah. Sure, *you* really do *not* come here to "prove" that you are right ...

Again, what is it's relevance to my quote?

Plausible deniability ........

Sure, label it as you wish. Look, it's not my fault you come across as being incredibly naive, or ignorant, and constantly blithering words completely irrelevant to my posts. If you find me rude, I couldn't really care.

That is cheap, you serpent.

What's with the namecalling you hypocrite?

You are trying to make me look bad so that you would look good in comparison.

I have no need to, you're doing good enough all by yourself. However, what I was doing, was quoting jesus. As you are supposedly a lover and follower of jesus, I assumed his words would actually have meaning for you. Guess not.

Diverting attention, huh?

Stop being silly. You asked a question, I answered it in whole, and now you're hellbent on a path of absolute irrelevancy. Don't accuse me of diverting attention when that's all you seem capable of.

You are the one afraid that God would know everything. You are afraid because you are trying to hide from Him.

Well surely that can't be true considering there is no such being. I hide from 'him' no more than I hide from leprechauns, vampires or frogmen from mars.

For you to see what you are.

And somehow italicizing my internet nickname does that? O......................k