well it certainly beats chain smoking and drinking beer all day if thats what you mean ....
Why did we get free will?
- Thread starter Betrayer0fHope
- Start date
so does that mean his statements are in line with the invisible pink unicorn and the flying spaghetti monster?
Is that what rational people do 'all day'?
Ask Sweden. 80-90% atheist and one of the best health records going as well as low drug abuse.
Just another thing you pulled out of your ass again. You're good at that.
I applaud your scraping of the barrel, but if you must know I've never smoked in my life and at best I averaged one night of drinking every few weeks and have barely had a drink in the past year.
Now back to the 80/90% of the Swedish population... ?
that's nice
now that you have convinced me you aren't an angry drunk, it might be more worthwhile for you to try and explain how affection is not the most defining force between two or more conscious entities.
Last edited:
I find it really cute you think all atheists are drunks, keep it up! But, heres a question for lg: There were several witnesses to Jesus's resurrection, the witnesses clearly lost their free will to believe that Jesus did not raise from the dead, wtf is going on there? or when those narbs saw moses part that one sea, um, imba god skillz much?
Never been in a fight either. Except as a child when I bust a kids nose open, and then cried when I had a finger wagged at me by a teacher.
Nicely avoided.
Defining force? Is that like the 'force' in Star Wars?
All?
not sure what your question is
Its not clear why you suggest witnessing an event (or a "truth" if you want to put it in philosophical terms) impedes free will
more in the sense of a powerful effect or influence or an active and efficient cause
......................................WARNING........................................
Don't encourage LG. If you do . you'll be treated to a sermon on why loving someone means serving them as god likes to be served. Don't asdk silly questions as to how lowly mankind can serve god and what esxactly does he want from us.
Then, whatever else you say , you'll be treated to a dose of Oriental wisdom whch, as we all know is a tautology because there is no wisdom to be found elasewhere. If you are unlucky, you will also got lashings of Buddhist insgnts.
If you tell LG that you think it may rain tomorrow, the likely response will be something like:
" As Sri Onion Bhagee says " Krishna decreed that rain will not fall in the Sahara. Go ye there and remain dry !" An alternative might be,
"As the Buddha said: " He who carries an umbrella after the rain has stopped will not be released from the round of birth, suffering and rebirth. He will be reborn as a walking stick ."
If this is your cup of tea go to it ,but don't say you haven't been warned !
Don't encourage LG. If you do . you'll be treated to a sermon on why loving someone means serving them as god likes to be served. Don't asdk silly questions as to how lowly mankind can serve god and what esxactly does he want from us.
Then, whatever else you say , you'll be treated to a dose of Oriental wisdom whch, as we all know is a tautology because there is no wisdom to be found elasewhere. If you are unlucky, you will also got lashings of Buddhist insgnts.
If you tell LG that you think it may rain tomorrow, the likely response will be something like:
" As Sri Onion Bhagee says " Krishna decreed that rain will not fall in the Sahara. Go ye there and remain dry !" An alternative might be,
"As the Buddha said: " He who carries an umbrella after the rain has stopped will not be released from the round of birth, suffering and rebirth. He will be reborn as a walking stick ."
If this is your cup of tea go to it ,but don't say you haven't been warned !
Don't forget to refer to the normative description of normative !
this "sermon" also acts as an accurate indication what one can expect from Myles
Agreed but only in response to twaddle. Remember, as it says in the BG, " He who would save energy should paddle his canoe downstream "
Thankyou for your input Myles
Sort of for the monster, but not the self contradictory (impossible) invisible pink _____.
Pascal (I think) advanced an argument for believing that God exists. I.e. this belief does not harm if false and gives big reward if true. (Heaven, eternal life, etc. in the Christian POV)
He was just rationalizing his strong Christian beliefs about the nature of God. That Christian belief can do harm, if this life is all there is. (For example, no sex prior to marriage etc.) Also it is based on very questionable assumptions about the nature of God. Why would a wise "all powerful" God crave the companionship of very inferior men in his heaven?
If God wants some men there, it seems to me that he would prefer the more rational, less gullible, ones. I.e. anyone who believes in things for which there is no evidence would be excluded from Heaven. Only the ones that do not believe, or at least doubt, that unicorns or god, etc. exist would be allowed in.
Perhaps God would prefer those with an open mind on these "no supporting evidence, but possible" things, more than those who waste their allotted time on Earth by praying to unicorns or other things with no supporting evidence.
I.e. it seems most likely to me that heaven is reserved for us agnostics. (Sorry about that Pascal.)
Thus it seems more probable, or at least more consistent with the Christian concept of God (powerful, wise, interested in man, etc.), that God allows into heaven only those that have rational minds - do not believe things with no supporting evidence that they even exist.
Consequently, Pascal's argument becomes:
Do not hold irrational beliefs in things like unicorns and existence of God (especially if acted upon by praying to them etc.) with no supporting evidence as then you go to hell. Only the more rational men are allowed into heaven as suitable companions for God (if God and heaven do exist).
I.e. Heaven is reserved for us agnostics, but perhaps Pascal deserves a shady, cooler, spot in Hell. In math etc he was quite logical and rational.
Last edited by a moderator:
That could go for any emotion - violence etc..? Two deer locking horns fighting over the right to mate...?
It seems to me that in certain cases. Love is an argument for the side that freewill does not exist. There is that age old saying, "You can't help who you love" and "you can't make someone love you" either they do or they don't. Sometimes you want to love someone when you just don't and sometimes you don't want to love someone when you do. Just saying or deciding that you don't love someone anymore doesn't make it true. Its a matter that you don't really have much of a choice in.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Free will is both the greatest and worst gift God gave us.
How difficult is it to know that you can do ANYTHING you want?
God knew you would, but it doesn't make it non-free will, it just makes our behaviour predictable, which it is(for most people).
How difficult is it to know that you can do ANYTHING you want?
God knew you would, but it doesn't make it non-free will, it just makes our behaviour predictable, which it is(for most people).
with out free will there is no possibility of love - I mean how do you propose to force someone to love you?