03 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThen you are a hypocrite, by asking me for evidence to back up my position when you require none to back up yours.
I want you to provide evidence that God has no right to rule the universe as you have asserted. You cannot prove or disprove Gods existence, for you and me, its a matter of faith.
03 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeOk, you are correct i was not listening, sorry. Now I have listened, understood and assimilated your text, there is no evidence that every molecule in the universe has been predetermined to act in a specific predetermined manner, what you are referring to appears to me to be a kind of fate. I don't believe it.
I know you keep saying I have a choice... But I think you are wrong and you are not
listening to me explain why I think that.
If you think my explanation of why is wrong then you need to say why and not
just keep restating your position... I KNOW your position, and think it's wrong.
That's why we are having this discussion.
In a determinis ...[text shortened]... inevitable consequence of everything that occurred from the beginning of
time to the present.
Originally posted by googlefudgewrong as I have already explained with my amazing snooker analogy, perfection is also relative. Even the Christ would not speak without an illustration.
If they were perfect then they couldn't make a mistake, or do anything wrong...
kinda by definition.
Thus to fall they can't have been perfect.
03 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieActually... More to the point.
I want you to provide evidence that God has no right to rule the universe as you have asserted. You cannot prove or disprove Gods existence, for you and me, its a matter of faith.
What EVIDENCE could be provided as to the question of gods RIGHT to rule the universe?
We are talking about morality and ethics when we talk about rights.
This isn't a discussion of gods ability to rule the universe, but whether he is justified in
doing so.
So unless you are going to simply say that might makes right, which I will never agree to,
the question of EVIDENCE doesn't arise.
It's a matter for moral argument and debate not of evidence.
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo hypocrisy, i realise that evidence for Gods existence or non existence cannot be proffered and have said as much, you have uttered forth a statement, a truth claim, without the slightest evidence, where is it? make with the reddiies Rodney or retract the assertion?
Then you are a hypocrite, by asking me for evidence to back up my position when you require none to back up yours.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOk fine, that's great. I don't necessarily believe the universe does in fact work like that.
Ok, you are correct i was not listening, sorry. Now I have listened, understood and assimilated your text, there is no evidence that every molecule in the universe has been predetermined to act in a specific predetermined manner, what you are referring to appears to me to be a kind of fate. I don't believe it.
However the point was that in that kind of universe as you say there is no free will of
the kind you are talking about and require. And you don't think the universe works that way.
However my original argument stated that for god to be able to see the entire future of the
universe into eternity then the universe MUST be of that kind of deterministic nature.
Which means you have a choice.
You can claim that god has 20:20 perfect future vision, and thus that we live in a completely
deterministic universe with no free will.
OR
You can claim we have free will and god thus can't see perfectly into the future.
Originally posted by googlefudgeOn the contrary, after six thousand years of human history, its apparent that Gods universal sovereignty, by comparison to human institutions is by far the right choice and as a consequence after having eliminated all attempts at human rule, Gods rule will be established as the most just, balanced, practical and loving and thus rightful arrangement.
Actually... More to the point.
What EVIDENCE could be provided as to the question of gods RIGHT to rule the universe?
We are talking about morality and ethics when we talk about rights.
This isn't a discussion of gods ability to rule the universe, but whether he is justified in
doing so.
So unless you are going to simply say that might make ...[text shortened]... stion of EVIDENCE doesn't arise.
It's a matter for moral argument and debate not of evidence.
03 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhoa. Hang on.
On the contrary, after six thousand years of human history, its apparent that Gods universal sovereignty, by comparison to human institutions is by far the right choice and as a consequence after having eliminated all attempts at human rule, Gods rule will be established as the most just, balanced, practical and loving and thus rightful arrangement.
My point was that the argument over whether god had a right to rule
(assuming god existed) was a discussion of morality and ethics and not
of evidence.
Given that, your post doesn't make sense or deal with that point.
Can we agree that this is a question of ethics and morality and not one
of evidence?
03 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeno i don't think it must be that kind of deterministic universe, you can let events unfold without knowing each and every specific detail, for example, in watercolour painting, you can let the pigments blend but still control to some extent the random permutations, a kind of controlled chaos.
Ok fine, that's great. I don't necessarily believe the universe does in fact work like that.
However the point was that in that kind of universe as you say there is no free will of
the kind you are talking about and require. And you don't think the universe works that way.
However my original argument stated that for god to be able to see the e ...[text shortened]... will.
OR
You can claim we have free will and god thus can't see perfectly into the future.
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo, i only deal in empircs, as a man of science i must demand empirical evidence.
Whoa. Hang on.
My point was that the argument over whether god had a right to rule
(assuming god existed) was a discussion of morality and ethics and not
of evidence.
Given that, your post doesn't make sense or deal with that point.
Can we agree that this is a question of ethics and morality and not one
of evidence?
Originally posted by googlefudgedude i am tired and unwell, i need to rest.
Whoa. Hang on.
My point was that the argument over whether god had a right to rule
(assuming god existed) was a discussion of morality and ethics and not
of evidence.
Given that, your post doesn't make sense or deal with that point.
Can we agree that this is a question of ethics and morality and not one
of evidence?
03 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOk, but you are now not talking about perfect ability to see the future into eternity.
no i don't think it must be that kind of deterministic universe, you can let events unfold without knowing each and every specific detail, for example, in watercolour painting, you can let the pigments blend but still control to some extent the random permutations, a kind of controlled chaos.
It's obviously possible to make predictions about the future, WE do it all the time.
However as time moves forwards, those predictions loose accuracy.
The more detail you can model, the better the prediction you can make.
And I am prepared to accept that if real your hypothetical god would be the
best it's possible to be at predicting the future.
However, unless the universe is deterministic, random fluctuations will alter it's
course... and certainly if you want free will, intelligent agents will make choices
that have consequences that change things.
In which case no being, no matter how good at making predictions, can see the future
into eternity. Because that future is undetermined. It's not written yet.
If you want god to have perfect future vision then you must give up free will and
accept fate.
If you want free will and not have the universe be predetermined then you must give
up god having a perfect view of the future.
03 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis statement is incompatible with the faith based belief you claimed earlier.
No, i only deal in empircs, as a man of science i must demand empirical evidence.
OK. Show me the empirical evidence that Sibelius's Finlandia Suite is a beautiful
piece of music.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo? Yes, or no would have been quicker to type.
dude i am tired and unwell, i need to rest.
If you're that unwell, then come back when you're feeling better.
If not, then answer the question.
And if you are unwell, then get well soon.
Take some modern medicine produced by science and be thankful you
don't live in the dark ages any more.