"proof that the christian god can't exist, debunked"

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Simply because I told you something would not mean you had knowledge: if you decided to take me at my word it would be belief until verified.

It means I have knowledge of what you told me, belief or lack of
would not change that.

One more time: if it isn't true it isn't knowledge.

Do you know what the name of the girl who made he way into the house
of the 3 bears and eat all baby bears porridge?
Please be honest.

No. You had no knowledge about the association (e.g. "1" meant nothing to you) until you were taught it.

Not true.
Read my response again.

No we don't know it.

Are we not destined to die?

And you are STILL skirting the issue.

Basically this means, I have no answer for this sound logic,
so I will make some accusation in an attempt to put an
end to it.

Calculated infallibly?

No. Infallable calculation

Can it be known (infallibly: without "perhaps" or "maybe" or "or this could happen") whether, given the "choice" between A and B, someone will absolutely certainly pick A?

Can't get around it, so you shift the goal-posts?
Read my previous response you will see that it can.

If it can be known (before the "choice" is made) then, given that it was known for a certainty they would pick A how could they have, at any stage whatsoever, picked B?

a) who said it can be known "before" the choice is made?
b) If they want to choose A, why would they want to choose B?

If they could not, therefore, have ever picked B how can there be a claim of "free will"?

They could have picked B, but they chose A.
Are you not aware of the content of your writing?

jan.

 

[scifes]

so A=the choice you'll pick.
B=the choice you're not going to pick.
A and B are two kinds of choices, the only two kinds of choices.

let's substitute in your "famous" question:

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?

it would turn out;

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick (the choice you're going to pick) how can you pick (the choice you're not going to pick)?

as we can all see, this question is senseless and illogical and downright stupid, for..wait a sec..-time out-
{

You promised us an answer two days ago (post 79) and so far haven't provided us one.

that would be the question i quoted and substituted, (post 79)..
and, um..the nonexistent answer that [wasn't provided], would also be the non-existent post containing the unprovided answer..post #101
}
now back to where we were, the question "If god knows you're going to choose the choice you're going to pick, how can you pick the choice you're not going to pick" as i said..was..well, let us say "baffling"..that only the simplest, most obvious, most straight forward answer would do, that's the only intellectually honest answer i had..;

you can, but you don't.

simple enough folks?
the refutation?

And this is your grand reply?
Fail.
If god knows then we cannot. It's that simple.

anyone wondered why?
anyone dared commit the crime of questioning Dywyddyr word?


you see, according to Dywyddyr's logic, in order for us to have true free will, in order for our free will not to be an illusion, we have to prove that we're able to choose what we don't choose by choosing it, making our initial choice NOT our choice and the other unchosen choice our choice..
hence another answer i thought of for the question

Answer the question: if god knows you're going to pick A how can you pick B?

is;
you mean choose them both??
as A then would become B and B would become A.
but i thought that might be a bit hard to understand, and definitely very easy to mutilate and misrepresent..

so how DOES predestined knowledge of a choice make that choice illusionary?

the honest answer is,because we can't choose other than what we choose (i.e what god know we're going to choose)..
what we choose=what god know's we're going to choose.
poor us, we're confined to that, we're forced to go by our choices..we want to go out of the illusion and choose what we don't choose.

Dywyddyr,
your words are of no theoretical or practical value, they make no sense whatsoever, they are absolutly unapplicable in this OR in any other imaginary world of your choice, for they are not within the boundries of human rationale, they're mere "this is how it is because i say it is" no proof, no anology, no explenation, no model or method, just a lot of time to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over verbatim, and hope it'll stick somewhere as correct.

now YOU answer the question;
if i gave you A and B to choose from Dywyddyr, in a world with no god, no prediction, are you able to choose?

if i gave you A and B to choose from, and told you your choice has been predestenied, does that affect your choice in any fucking way?

don't refute me unless with proof, or some sort of backup, other than "because i say so".

 

[Jan Ardena]

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
...how do you define "free agent".!!!



How do you define "free-will".???

The ability to choose of your own mind.

jan

 

[Dywyddyr]

It means I have knowledge of what you told me, belief or lack of would not change that.

No: you'd have knowledge that I had told you, not knowledge about the tiger itself, or my bathroom.

Do you know what the name of the girl who made he way into the house of the 3 bears and eat all baby bears porridge?
Please be honest.

How is this at all relevant?
No: I know the name of the girl in the story though.

Not true.
Read my response again.

And like I said: you're incorrect - you had to learn the association. The word "one" could have meant tractor (if that was the picture), or blue - you learned what "1" meant through a process.

Are we not destined to die?

Ho ho ho. Destined? Are we? The word "destined" implies a conscious agency.

Basically this means, I have no answer for this sound logic, so I will make some accusation in an attempt to put an end to it.

You haven't displayed "sound logic".

No. Infallable calculation

Er yes. Calculated, infallibly = infallible calculation.

Can't get around it, so you shift the goal-posts?
Read my previous response you will see that it can.

No, your "infallible calculation" of what would be done turned out to assignment of probabilities.

a) who said it can be known "before" the choice is made?

The question was CAN it be known beforehand?

b) If they want to choose A, why would they want to choose B?

Way to miss the point. Is it possible to choose B if the choice of A was known beforehand?

They could have picked B, but they chose A.
Are you not aware of the content of your writing?

I see you're oblivious to the actual logic of the question.
If they could have picked B then it cannot have been known for a certainty that they would pick A.

 

[Dywyddyr]

as we can all see, this question is senseless and illogical and downright stupid, for..wait a sec..-time out-

Why?
Or are you admitting that we can ONLY choose what god knows we will pick?
In other words we do not choose freely, we only pick what god knows we're going to?
And your answer is incorrect.
Back to the point: if it is known beforehand (incontrovertibly, a fact) how can you pick the other one?

now back to where we were, the question "If god knows you're going to choose the choice you're going to pick, how can you pick the choice you're not going to pick" as i said..was..well, let us say "baffling"..that only the simplest, most obvious, most straight forward answer would do, that's the only intellectually honest answer i had..;

Which skirts the entire issue.

Edit: most of the above is now irrelevant due to the statement from Scifes below.

the honest answer is,because we can't choose other than what we choose (i.e what god know we're going to choose)..
what we choose=what god know's we're going to choose.
poor us, we're confined to that, we're forced to go by our choices..we want to go out of the illusion and choose what we don't choose.

Ah no: you've answered the question.
We can't choose what we don't choose.
Thank you.
We do not have free will because we'll always choose what god knows we will choose.

Dywyddyr,
your words are of no theoretical or practical value, they make no sense whatsoever, they are absolutly unapplicable in this OR in any other imaginary world of your choice, for they are not within the boundries of human rationale, they're mere "this is how it is because i say it is" no proof, no anology, no explenation, no model or method, just a lot of time to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over verbatim, and hope it'll stick somewhere as correct.

No, you finally got round to answering the question and making the point for me.
If god knows then we don't have free will.
In your own words:

we can't choose other than what we choose (i.e what god know we're going to choose)..
what we choose=what god know's we're going to choose.

And THAT was Cris's point.
If god knows, we DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL.
Therefore atheists (as with everyone else) were destined from the start to be atheists and those that will go to Hell (or wherever) were assigned there from the very beginning, with no "choice" whatsoever in the matter - it wasn't (and isn't) our decision: god made us to be atheists.
Atheists were created to be atheists.
And that's a "merciful" god?

now YOU answer the question;
if i gave you A and B to choose from Dywyddyr, in a world with no god, no prediction, are you able to choose?

Yes.

if i gave you A and B to choose from, and told you your choice has been predestenied, does that affect your choice in any fucking way?

If the conditions above are still true and the only variation is your statement the answer is still yes.
Wow you really DO miss the point don't you?
How many times have I stated outright, in this thread alone, that if there is knowledge (which predestination counts as) then our "choices" are not choices: we are doomed to select what was predicted for us to select, and that choice can ONLY exist if there is no knowledge possible.

don't refute me

Refute you?
You asked a question...

*** Conclusion***
Going from the above, i.e. "what we choose=what god know's we're going to choose" I can only assume (as I must because that's how god intended it) that Scifes and Jan have only been acting as they were intended to, so I won't hold them to blame (as I cannot: because, since I do not it must have been intended that I would not).
I only hope that god got his necessary "kick" from observing the last 9 pages.
Rather than "debunking" Cris's claim Scifes has validated it:

Question:

If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born [Note: admitted by Scifes, above], regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.

Conclusions:

If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.

If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.

God may exist: but he's certainly not what you'd accept as a role-model.
Thank you.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

No: you'd have knowledge that I had told you, not knowledge about the tiger itself, or my bathroom.

So?
We have imperfect knowledge.
What's new?

How is this at all relevant?
No: I know the name of the girl in the story though.

If you know something, then that's knowledge.

And like I said: you're incorrect - you had to learn the association. The word "one" could have meant tractor (if that was the picture), or blue - you learned what "1" meant through a process.

There were different pictures of different colours, but the one thing that
remained the same was the 1.
Yes I learned through a process, a step by step process. The way I explained it to you.

Ho ho ho. Destined? Are we? The word "destined" implies a conscious agency.

Yes, we are destined to die.

Er yes. Calculated, infallibly = infallible calculation.

No it doesn't.

No, your "infallible calculation" of what would be done turned out to assignment of probabilities.

No. You turned it into an assignment of probabilities.

The question was CAN it be known beforehand?

you said;

If it can be known (before the "choice" is made) then, given that it was known for a certainty they would pick A how could they have, at any stage whatsoever, picked B?

Your getting clumsy.

Way to miss the point. Is it possible to choose B if the choice of A was known beforehand?

What does "beforehand" mean in this context?

I see you're oblivious to the actual logic of the question.
If they could have picked B then it cannot have been known for a certainty that they would pick A.

They could have picked B if they wanted to, but, they chose A.
Just take your atheist hat off, and actually think about what I'm saying.
You don't have to believe it, or agree with it, but you'll see that it debunks this so-called paradox.
If you can't do that, then it becomes obvious that you aren't really interested
in any form of reasonable discussion.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

We have imperfect knowledge.
What's new?

So you didn't actually have a point there?

If you know something, then that's knowledge.

It's knowledge because it's verifiable.

Yes I learned through a process, a step by step process. The way I explained it to you.

So now you aren't claiming you had knowledge to start with?

Yes, we are destined to die.

Nope: we will die, but it hasn't been shown that there's a conscious agency that's set it up for us to die.

No it doesn't.

Okay, why not?

No. You turned it into an assignment of probabilities.

Nice try but untrue:

If God can calculate that you would pick A, then the same method of calculation can be used to calculate the unsurety of the decision, and the full set of reasons which lends itself to those characteristics.

Post #125.
If there's any unsureness of the final result then it becomes a probability, not a certainty.

Your getting clumsy.

I see you haven't been following the thread at all, merely assuming what I've written instead of reading it.
Post #146

Can it be known (infallibly: without "perhaps" or "maybe" or "or this could happen")

What does "beforehand" mean in this context?

Is English a language you actually speak?
Beforehand = before the "choice" is made.

If they could have picked B then it cannot have been known for a certainty that they would pick A.

If they could have then that means there was (and is) no calculation (or any other method of knowing) before they made the decision.

They could have picked B if they wanted to, but, they chose A.

Then it cannot have been infallibly predicted.

Just take your atheist hat off, and actually think about what I'm saying.
You don't have to believe it, or agree with it, but you'll see that it debunks this so-called paradox.
If you can't do that, then it becomes obvious that you aren't really interested in any form of reasonable discussion.

This amounts to a claim if I don't see things your way I'm not being serious...
Very, er, :shrug:
Maybe I should simply say the same to you: if you can't see that paradox is real then you're not actually interested.
Get the point?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Nope: we will die, but it hasn't been shown that there's a conscious agency that's set it up for us to die.

destiny:

something that predetermines events:
a force or agency that predetermines
what will happen

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=destiny

Okay, why not?

"Infallible calculation" describes the calculation.
Swapping the words around doesn't seem to mean anything.

Nice try but untrue:

Post #125.
If there's any unsureness of the final result then it becomes a probability, not a certainty.

The unsureness stems from the character of the person given the choice.

I see you haven't been following the thread at all, merely assuming what I've written instead of reading it.
Post #146

Didn't you read the quote of yours I posted?

Is English a language you actually speak?
Beforehand = before the "choice" is made.

If there is no choice (as in before the choice was made), what is there
to calculate?

If they could have then that means there was (and is) no calculation (or any other method of knowing) before they made the decision.

This is a response to your own post.

They could have picked B if they wanted to, but, they chose A.

Then it cannot have been infallibly predicted.

I've explained how this could work in earlier posts, either you can't see it, or you don't want to see it. But you have yet to give a reason why.

This amounts to a claim if I don't see things your way I'm not being serious...

Read my response again, and you'll see that I said "you don't have to agree with it".

Maybe I should simply say the same to you: if you can't see that paradox is real then you're not actually interested.
Get the point?

It's only a paradox within limits set by you.
God has no limits.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

destiny:
something that predetermines events:
a force or agency that predetermines what will happen

Quite: so what exactly is the force or agency (which I have previously stated is required for it to be destiny)

Infallible calculation" describes the calculation.
Swapping the words around doesn't seem to mean anything.

And now you're being ridiculous.
An infallible calculation is the result of something being calculated infallibly.

The unsureness stems from the character of the person given the choice.

And the unsureness (as you said) is in the calculation: in other words it's a probabilistic result, not a definitive "This is what will be selected"

Didn't you read the quote of yours I posted?

I did: I also quoted the post that led directly to my wording of "can".
Do try to keep up.

If there is no choice (as in before the choice was made), what is there to calculate?

Er, which (of the "options") will be chosen? You really aren't following this at all are you?
My apologies, I assumed you were because some of your posts appeared to be relevant to the topic of discussion and my statements.
Once the choice has been made no calculation is required.

They could have picked B if they wanted to, but, they chose A.

So god doesn't know what we're going to pick?

I've explained how this could work in earlier posts

No, you handwaved round it.

Read my response again, and you'll see that I said "you don't have to agree with it".

You also said

but you'll see that it debunks this so-called paradox.
If you can't do that, then it becomes obvious that you aren't really interested

Effectively: if I can't see your point I'm not being serious.

It's only a paradox within limits set by you.

Then you have failed completely to understand the questions.
Following the chain of reasoning given at the end of my reply to Scifes I can (because that's what was, obviously, intended by god) give you no further time until you have shown me conclusively that you have understood the question. I can't hold you responsible for engaging (at length) in discussing a topic about which you have now shown yourself to have almost zero comprehension, because that, too, (by Scifes' logic) was what you were intended to do. Once again I can only wonder (because, presumably, I was intended to) at the things god finds worthwhile to have us do.

God has no limits.

Yet you, personally, feel you're qualified to talk about some of his characteristics.
If he has no limits what makes you think you're capable of saying anything meaningful about god at all?

 

[scifes]

you should've answered the first question "no", troll.

Why?
Or are you admitting that we can ONLY choose what god knows we will pick?

nope, god knows what we're going to choose.

In other words we do not choose freely, we only pick what god knows we're going to?

when we choose freely, god knew it all along sonny.

And your answer is incorrect.

says you, the cornered guy with only one sentence to paraphrase a million ways.

Back to the point: if it is known beforehand (incontrovertibly, a fact) how can you pick the other one?

lol, WHAT is known before hand?
what is known before hand is the choice i'll be making out of my free will, and so yes, i am so poor i can't choose other than the choice i make out of free will.
hence, i don't have freee will :roflmao: what a troll you turned out to be.

Ah no: you've answered the question.
We can't choose what we don't choose.
Thank you.

:jawdrop:
OMG!!
why you're welcome, want me to get you a cab to the asylum?

If god knows then we don't have free will.

if the tree is pink the fish is grizzly.

If god knows, we DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL.

if the tree is pink THE FISH IS GRIZZLY.

Therefore atheists (as with everyone else) were destined from the start to be atheists and those that will go to Hell (or wherever) were assigned there from the very beginning, with no "choice" whatsoever in the matter - it wasn't (and isn't) our decision: god made us to be atheists.
Atheists were created to be atheists.

lool, what about the atheists who converted? eh troll?

And that's a "merciful" god?

ohhh that's one side of him, the one you might not be facing dear friend..

now let me show you how it's done:

if i gave you A and B to choose from Dywyddyr, in a world with no god, no prediction, are you able to choose?

Yes.

veeery goood..meaning you have "true" free will which is not illusionary.
um, and:

if i gave you A and B to choose from, and told you your choice has been predestenied, does that affect your choice in any fucking way?

If the conditions above are still true and the only variation is your statement the answer is still yes.

and so, there's no difference between the true free will when god doesn't exist(said D) and the illusionary one when god DOES exist and know everything beforehand.
it just makes no difference.

Wow

"he actually made me admit it!!"
but you know trolls:

you really DO miss the point don't you?

they tend to repeat themselves, you see that past sentence, it was the first reply ever here..

How many times have I stated outright, in this thread alone,...

enough to earn the title of a troll, you see, debate doesn't work by repeating stuff, that's how trolling works.

that if there is knowledge (which predestination counts as) then our "choices" are not choices: we are doomed to select what was predicted for us to select, and that choice can ONLY exist if there is no knowledge possible.

yes, you must have repeated this a million times by now, and you haven't gotten sick of it, add some spices now and then man, some proof sugaring, some example or model dip, some analogy sauce.. cuz anymore of this from you and i'm going to the hospital.

Refute you?
You asked a question...

ha ha, yes i asked a question, but i knew (and i was right) that you'll give more than an answer, smarty. and that's why i said to keep your "because i said so" for yourself if you can't back it up, which you didn't, as expected of a troll.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
“ What"personal-choise"... God created the very circumstances that causes you to pick A or B... ”

Nevertheless, as you point out you can pick A or B.
Whichever you pick is your personal choice.

To clarify what i ment in that statment:::

Ever detale of our existence hapens the way it does because of the way we was specificaly designed by God... God knew befor we was even borned that we woud pick "A" (not "B")... ie... we was programed by God to pick "A"... our lives unfold as if they were a movie on film... an no mater how many times the movie of our life was re-wound an played bak... we woud pick "A" ever time.!!!

Do you agree wit that.???

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Hay Scifes... Did God know that Adam an Eve woud sin even befor he created 'em.???

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
...how do you define "free agent".!!! ”

To do anything you like without certain limitations (body, mind, etc..)

Are som humans "free-agents".???

How do you define "free-will".???

The ability to choose of your own mind.

Is our free-will limited in any way.???

 

[scifes]

Hay Scifes... Did God know that Adam an Eve woud sin even befor he created 'em.???

yes he did.
why create them then? idk, i'm no god

is he at fault for the choice they made?
that question answers itself now doesn't it?choice is choice, there's no changing that..
cuz by rephrasing -to look at things the other way- :
they made the choice, is god at fault for it for creating them?
why create a being with the ability to choose, if you know they'll make the wrong choice?
the responsibility that comes with the ability to choose cuts the blame of their wrong choice from reaching you, and becoming your responsibility..
but why do it to begin with?
i don't know..i don't know why god does anything..it's just beyond me..no food no money no need..:shrug:

could adam and eve chose not to sin?
why that's easy isn't it..imagine that you could ask them face to face, what do you think they'd answer?
they were the first humans, just like us, ask any sinner in this world, was he able not to sin? ask me, and i'd tell you yes i can, when i choose to sin i do sin, and when i choose not to i don't..temptation plays a role, but in the end no one forces me.
ask atheists if they're able to become theists, there are plenty around here who say they can't.

 

[Dywyddyr]

you should've answered the first question "no", troll.

I assume you mean your question about "could I change my mind?".
Another example of your dishonesty: YOU gave me the answer and now you're claiming it's my fault...

nope, god knows what we're going to choose.
when we choose freely, god knew it all along sonny.

So you're back to obfuscation (and retracting your statements).
If god knows (infallibly) what we will choose, and he's never wrong then how can we choose whatever we like?

says you, the cornered guy with only one sentence to paraphrase a million ways.

So you've changed your mind again?

lol, WHAT is known before hand?
what is known before hand is the choice i'll be making out of my free will, and so yes, i am so poor i can't choose other than the choice i make out of free will.
hence, i don't have freee will :roflmao: what a troll you turned out to be.

My apologies to you. also: you are another that can't follow a chain of logic.

:jawdrop:
OMG!!
why you're welcome, want me to get you a cab to the asylum?

I quote your own words and you make accusations of asylums?

if the tree is pink the fish is grizzly.
if the tree is pink THE FISH IS GRIZZLY.

One more display of your inability.

lool, what about the atheists who converted? eh troll?

They were meant to convert. Can you not see the consequences of your own claim?

now let me show you how it's done:
veeery goood..meaning you have "true" free will which is not illusionary.
um, and:

Again a failure to follow the logic.

and so, there's no difference between the true free will when god doesn't exist(said D) and the illusionary one when god DOES exist and know everything beforehand.
it just makes no difference.

Wrong again.
Your question referred to a statement by you (only) not the actual existence of predestination.

"he actually made me admit it!!"
but you know trolls:
they tend to repeat themselves, you see that past sentence, it was the first reply ever here..
enough to earn the title of a troll, you see, debate doesn't work by repeating stuff, that's how trolling works.

I see, so when you stated:

we can't choose other than what we choose (i.e what god know we're going to choose)..
what we choose=what god know's we're going to choose.

it was an accident?
I forced you into?
Because you were pressured and didn't have time to think about what you really wanted to say?
I put you on the spot and you felt you HAD to give an answer (whether you meant it or not).
I made you give a reply within 41 minutes?

ha ha, yes i asked a question, but i knew (and i was right) that you'll give more than an answer, smarty. and that's why i said to keep your "because i said so" for yourself if you can't back it up, which you didn't, as expected of a troll.

And you were dishonest about being able to accept that you were wrong...
You make my point for me and, rather than acknowledge the fact you resort to calling me a troll.
So noted.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Final note on the topic.
Funnily enough, one of the books I'm currently reading is on cognitive dissonance and here we have two marvellous displays of it.
Both SciFes and Jan are prepared to follow the chain of logic (and, indeed, make appeals to logic), but when it comes to god they both back pedal rapidly and make assertions of "Oh but logic doesn't apply in this case".

Two conflicting beliefs:
logic works (to the extent that they will call on it repeatedly in an effort to refute me)
logic doesn't work (when god is involved, i.e. in this special circumstance in which I have decided it doesn't).
We've even had the statement from Jan that "god has no limits", which, as I pointed, makes any statement (or even speculation) by a human an utterly pointless exercise from the start.
Which appears to be resolved (at least partly!) by insults and claims of trolling...

Much like this thread...

Scifes' constant questions to me on could I at least admit the possibility I could be wrong and admit the point if he were to show me (and , effectively, Cris) that we have been wrong were accompanied by the implication that he could, and would, do the same.
Yet, having made my point for me Scifes now resorts to backtracking, claims that I'm a troll and that he was somehow "forced" into making statements he didn't really mean.
So much for honesty.

 

[scifes]

Dywyddyr,
1-when i said
"he actually made me admit it", i said it as if it's you saying it, like on your tongue.

2-how many times here have i admitted that i'm wrong, and how many times have you? do you have ANY idea how easy and socially appealing it is for me to admit i'm wrong and leave with the conclusion that i've learnt something new? to join the group? be "like" the rest? not be looked down upon like a "woo woo"?
but what is VERY hard for me, like i said before, is to give in to pressure and say "yeah you're right" when my brain tells me it's not, to say that it turned out you were correct when i don't believe it.
you on the other hand, i've never seen admit he's wrong on something, well that's mainly because you're good at almost anything, but still..not even once?
how hard is it to have that record broken?

then on the other hand in case you truely see your point to be correct and ours wrong, then i don't know what to say, you are CERTAINLY doing very poorly in matter of quality and great in matters of quantity... i'm just so sure about this, i've given all my arguments, had them all sidestepped by

Again a failure to follow the logic.

you are another that can't follow a chain of logic.

One more display of your inability.

Again a failure to follow the logic.

Wrong again.

, it rally frustrates me, cuz my proof is there alright, it hasn't been answered, just muddled with and rejected, and your argument is one sentence, one statement, one "fact"; that's how you treat it, you can't even apply it to a friggin example..and you weary me with your disintegration of a whole general idea into small sentences replied to by the self righteous refutes of yours, which i can easily reply to, but the clutter that'll create is unbelievable, and the deviation away from the matter at hand increases by each reply of yours...sigh
if you want me to go back and reply to each refutation of my arguments i can, the page would be a mile long though, and i know that won't stop you from replying to it in a two mile long reply, which would require a 4 mile long reply from me, so i reach the end, arguments depleted, unanswered and unaccepted, and you're still there replying to all who come with the same reply..!
i should just give up..i thought many times, just leave the thread...but i thought, till when? if i leave it now i'll leave others after, besides, it's not a matter of POVs, as i SEE your POV and i believe it WRONG, so should i abandon what i believe is right because it's hard to show so?
lol, i even considered putting you on my ignore list, it seems being the proclaimed woo-woo banisher has gone up your head, not only is defeat in front of those out of the question, your tactics are even a bit similar to theirs now, which for me seem to be just stalling till they abandon hope and leave..

if god knows the single outcome, what are the other choices there for? mere display? personal satisfaction? illusion of being in control?
what is the meaning of "choice", if not all choices are equally available? all having the same possibility of being chosen? isn't it one is 100% and the rest 0%?

even while typing the previous words, they're just not sitting quite right with me, not because then god would be evil, but my brain is saying it's wrong..

what's the point of reference here? for choice i mean? us, or the cosmos? us or universal objectivity? us or god?

for us(the ones making the choice) it makes no difference for us, whether our choice is preknown or not, as long as we don't know it, we're still independent, oblivious, ignorant, of that knowledge, merely TELLING us that our choice is known does not effect us, or our choice..

on a universal cosmological observing point of view, then yes maybe, choice is illusionary for us humans, if time unfolds out of white paper, and starts writing, then yes choice is not illusionary, if on the other hand, the book is written, and time is merely RE_WRITING what has already been written, then yes maybe choice is illusionary.

taking these two cosmological POV to us humans, does it make any difference?
the cosmological illusionary choice and the cosmological non-illusionary choice, can we differentiate between them? can we know which is which?
it's like OUR eyes are filtered to see only what's written NOW, what's being written now, so for us, whether the the paper that isn't written into yet is white or not makes no difference for us, we see it blank anyway, for one who can see the future (god for example), yes there are two possibilities of choice a true one and an illusionary one, for the external observer only, not us.

the choice, is taken by us.
the choice is roped, glued, nailed to us humans.

that is why i refused to acknowledge your other universal view.

 

[Dywyddyr]

you on the other hand, i've never seen admit he's wrong on something, well that's mainly because you're good at almost anything, but still..not even once?
how hard is it to have that record broken?

This boils down to "I personally think you're wrong, but Dywyddyr won't agree with me. So he's simply being stubborn even though I can't actually show him to be wrong".

it rally frustrates me, cuz my proof is there alright,

Wghat you claim to be proof, and I've shown it doesn't hold up.

it's not a matter of POVs, as i SEE your POV and i believe it WRONG

You believe, but you can't show...

lol, i even considered putting you on my ignore list, it seems being the proclaimed woo-woo banisher has gone up your head, not only is defeat in front of those out of the question, your tactics are even a bit similar to theirs now, which for me seem to be just stalling till they abandon hope and leave..

And another ad hom.
You blame your failure on me...

if god knows the single outcome, what are the other choices there for? mere display? personal satisfaction? illusion of being in control?
what is the meaning of "choice", if not all choices are equally available? all having the same possibility of being chosen? isn't it one is 100% and the rest 0%?

So does god (or anyone) know or not?

for one who can see the future (god for example), yes there are two possibilities of choice a true one and an illusionary one, for the external observer only, not us.

Exactly. This is what I've been trying to get across to you all along:
A true choice (i.e. what is foreseen) and an illusory one.
It doesn't matter that it's true/ illusory to an external observer: if it's true/ illusory at all then we HAVE NO REAL CHOICE. We only think we do.

And I'll say it now for you: the typical (and so far) only refutation you'll have will be something along the lines of: "Oh but you're not looking at it properly. God is god and we do have a free will because what I just said doesn't really work like that."
The disconnect in thinking continues...

Once more you make my point for me.
We don't have a choice, we're puppets: we are as we were intended to be from the very start. Those who believe, were made (constructed, not "forced") to believe, those who don't were made that way, as were those who "change their minds".

It's really (really really really) funny though, because if this is the case then atheists have a "better" understanding of god than do theists.
Theists will continue their cognitive dissonance and keep repeating "Oh but god is good, he loves us" and atheists realise that he's a sadistic puppet master who set us up from the start.

 

[scifes]

sorry couldn't continue reading when i came along this

if it's true/ illusory at all then we HAVE NO REAL CHOICE. We only think we do.

what is choice than to think we have a choice?

 

[scifes]

This boils down to "I personally think you're wrong, but Dywyddyr won't agree with me. So he's simply being stubborn even though I can't actually show him to be wrong".

what if i showed you over and over and over and you'd still won't agree? as i have did?
re read our debate from the start and tell me how many times i've displayed it.

Wghat you claim to be proof, and I've shown it doesn't hold up.

there's a difference between showing it doesn't hold up and quoting parts of it and typing sentences.

You believe, but you can't show...

i have showed, more than once, and requested that you show in return, more than once, and you've ignored, each and every one.
and i warn you from making claims like these, less than 5 posts ago you were declaring i promised you an answer and didn't provide it, it's too soon to be repeating your mistake.

And another ad hom.
You blame your failure on me...

if i had a mistake in this, it's that i was so concerned of avoiding ad homs that i let you run loose, ad hom is using info about the debater to win something in a debate, if anything, i've lost much in this debate because of info i have about my debater.

So does god (or anyone) know or not?

yes god does, and for god we're like a movie seen by him a billion times, our so called "choices are meaningless"
but for us, choices are choices.
and because of that, we are held for the consequences.
do not, i repeat, DO NOT ask clueless's question, as i've answered it in length, the "why would he create us when he knows our choices".. that is simply an irrelative question for us to ask, for an observer observing us and god, he may question that, but we have our choice in our hand, and we make the decisions, and we can't blame god for giving us choice.

Exactly. This is what I've been trying to get across to you all along:

well it's been there for some time, when will my message reach you?

A true choice (i.e. what is foreseen) and an illusory one.
It doesn't matter that it's true/ illusory to an external observer: if it's true/ illusory at all then we HAVE NO REAL CHOICE. We only think we do.

i've asked a root question about this in the previous post, if you answer honestly, you'll get what i mean.

And I'll say it now for you: the typical (and so far) only refutation you'll have will be something along the lines of: "Oh but you're not looking at it properly. God is god and we do have a free will because what I just said doesn't really work like that."
The disconnect in thinking continues...

and here you declare that i don't have the potential of bringing a proper refutation, why did you say yes you're aware of the possibility of being wrong then before? eh?

Once more you make my point for me.

you said this a thousand times, and the point is, you never had a point for neither me nor you nor anyone to prove. your point is that none of us have a point, you morph into the opposite of what one says, you're anti-woo woo, you become anti-sense when woo woo come up with sense.

We don't have a choice, we're puppets: we are as we were intended to be from the very start. Those who believe, were made (constructed, not "forced") to believe, those who don't were made that way, as were those who "change their minds".

and you are a 100% correct, we can NEVER change what god intended us to be, but not knowing WHAT god intended us to be, we can choose.

one who is born atheist doesn't know if god "constructed" him to be an atheist-muslim convertee, or an atheist-christian-convertee, or an atheist all along to the grave.
so he can choose, and that choice would turn out to be what he was constructed to be, as i've said, 179 posts ago, that:

In conclusion: we determine which predetermined destiny to end up
with

but for one who forgot 78 posts back, one who appearantly didn't read #101 and demanded it's contents, it's understandable.
and so, to this point of yours, i RE-plant a flag in the ground saying DEBUNKED.
what did i recieve the first time i debunked this?;

As usual Scifes misses the point;

It's really (really really really) funny though, because if this is the case then atheists have a "better" understanding of god than do theists.
Theists will continue their cognitive dissonance and keep repeating "Oh but god is good, he loves us" and atheists realise that he's a sadistic puppet master who set us up from the start.

atheists are rarely correct, and when they reach potentially correct conclusions, they make the wrong choices.
D, i agree with this portion, but that sadistic god is gonna put you in hell and theists in heaven.
way to go with a better understanding