Re: Predestination
fasgnadh
> In article <m4_0n.67218$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Virgil wrote:
>>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>>> IAAH wrote:
>>>>> On 1/3/10 11:05 PM, * Penelope Marris wrote:
>>>>>> Predestination #1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is predestination? How does free will fit in? What about man's
>>>>>> sinfulness and God's sovereignty? Is predestination a fair doctrine or
>>>>>> does it make God out to be dispassionate and tyrannical? In this paper,
>>>>>> I will attempt to answer those questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Predestination is the doctrine that God alone chooses (elects) who is
>>>>>> saved.
>>>>
>>>> If YHWH is the all-knowing, then he must already know who He
>>>> is going to choose.
>>>
>>> But that and free will are logically incompossible.
>>
>> Rubbish.. A meterologist KNOWS (can predict) the weather
>> but they don't make it happen, an astronomer can tell you where
>> an asteroid will impact a planet, but they don't
>> cause it to land there, and I can predict your next move in Chess,
>> but I don't cause you to make it.
>>
> For Fasgnadh's argument to be at all relevant, he must be claiming that
...Virgil has free will..
which is clearly the case, unless he is a witless automaton.
If I, a mere mortal, can predict all that, the weather,
an asteroid impact, the behaviour of Virgil, how much more, by
definition, an Omnipotent deity which has perfect knowledge, unbound by
time, knows all things.
>> You confuse KNOWING what will happen, a result of
>> perfect knowledge with MAKING it happen.
>
> On the contrary, what I note is that for a person to have free will
> implies that his or her actions cannot be entirely predictable by anyone
> else, including gods, if there are any.
Illogical rubbish.
If we have perfect knowledge, we know their emotional state, their
intellectual processes, hormone levels, environmental influences
and thus we can already predict with high levels of certainty
that they will go, when the traffic light turns green.
If we also know that their engine has flooded, or they have sufffered
a massive stroke, that they will not go when the light turns green.
Any college graduate of at least moderate IQ understands the predictive
capacity of science. The remaining problems are 'merely' the factors
which are as yet unknown, and the level of complexity. ;-)
The billions of examples where we can show that knowledge enables
a predictive capacity demonstrates that perfect knowledge does
not remove free will, it relies upon it.
> Anything totally predictable has no choice.
Strange that you refer to yourself as anyTHING. Things don't have
choice. People do.
If a bevvy of beautiful women show you a yacht, tell you it's yours,
they will crew it, cook your favourite food, serve your drinks,
satisfy your every desire, for as long as you like, and no one
need ever know, unless you like creating envy.. then we can predict
your behaviour.. but you have a choice. And if we had Divine insight
into your being, psychological, emotional, physical.. then we
could know of a certainty, if you were a limp-dicked, life-hating,
self-flagellating, woman hating, ocean-phobic cake boy who will
say NO!
You persist in the LOGICAL error of confusing KNOWING what will happen,
in this case a result of perfect knowledge UNCONSTRAINED BY TIME,
with MAKING it happen....
>> That's because you are an incredibly stupid and ignorant cretin!
>
> That is AN ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM FALLACY,
No it's a logical truth.
>>> So that those who insist on believing in both are fooling themselves.
>> I haven't met anyone so determined to repeatedly humiliate themselves
>> in public since Mosley, the perennial NKOTY in aus.politics!
>
> Another ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM FALLACY by the same author.
You forge posts, I ridicule and deride you for doing so.
You whine like a little bitch.... I mock you further.
All of those actions are the result of free will, and yours
are certainly predictable.. but I don't make you do them,
you choose to be a dishonest atheist forger, deserving contempt!
Your basic thesis that prediction and choice are incompatible
is disproven!
--
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
Kadaitcha Man
> Virgil wrote:
>> On the contrary, what I note is that for a person to have free will
>> implies that his or her actions cannot be entirely predictable by
>> anyone else, including gods, if there are any.
>
> Illogical rubbish.
Well, no. He's partly right, and you entirely miss the point.
He's wrong on this: "actions cannot be entirely predictable by
anyone else, including gods", unless he now claims to be a god that is
incapable of predicting actions. But then, he can't be a god because gods
don't predict, apparently they "know" in advance.
There is no free will. There can only be freedom of will.
That's point number one. The laws of physics prove that to be a true
statement.
Point number two, by labelling free will actions as completely
unpredictable he has painted himself into a corner with gallons of thick,
black tar that won't dry for years...
What is it, in his world view, that has put limits on his will?
Hmmm? Go ahead, ask him; is he free to kill another human being in cold
blood, for pleasure? Would he kill another human being in cold blood, for
pleasure?
If he says no to the second question then it is true that there is no
free will. If he says yes, contact the police.
> You persist in the LOGICAL error of confusing KNOWING what will happen,
> in this case a result of perfect knowledge UNCONSTRAINED BY TIME, with
> MAKING it happen....
You seem to confuse making it happen with allowing it to happen.
> You forge posts, I ridicule and deride you for doing so. You whine like
> a little bitch.... I mock you further.
Wrong. His free will to do such things is completely constrained if his
ISP shit-cans his account for what he does. Where is the free will there?
there is none.
> Your basic thesis that prediction and choice are incompatible is
> disproven!
So, what do prediction and choice have to do with predestination, apart
from fuck all?
Do you even comprehend what predestination is?
I suspect you do, but I doubt that you know it.
--
Test signature
Sir Frederick
stories, such as yours.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
In which case, Fasgnadh is conceding the absence of any amniscient gods.
>
>
> If I, a mere mortal, can predict all that, the weather,
> an asteroid impact, the behaviour of Virgil
Which Fasgnadh cannot do. If he could do it, he would answer all my
posts BEFORE I post them.
>
> >> You confuse KNOWING what will happen, a result of
> >> perfect knowledge with MAKING it happen.
> >
> > On the contrary, what I note is that for a person to have free will
> > implies that his or her actions cannot be entirely predictable by anyone
> > else, including gods, if there are any.
>
> Illogical rubbish.
Nowhere near as illogical as claiming existence of an omiscient
omnipotent being who would bother create this universe and then bother
give any attention to the miniscule human part of that universe.
Virgil
Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
> Some microbic cloud of fart gas named fasgnadh skulked:
>
> > Virgil wrote:
>
> >> On the contrary, what I note is that for a person to have free will
> >> implies that his or her actions cannot be entirely predictable by
> >> anyone else, including gods, if there are any.
> >
> > Illogical rubbish.
>
> Well, no. He's partly right, and you entirely miss the point.
>
> He's wrong on this: "actions cannot be entirely predictable by
> anyone else, including gods", unless he now claims to be a god that is
> incapable of predicting actions. But then, he can't be a god because gods
> don't predict, apparently they "know" in advance.
If there is anyone or anything that can predict exactly what I will do,
then I cannot will not to do what is predicted nor will to do anything
but what is predicted.
So where in that do I allegedly have free will?
>
> There is no free will. There can only be freedom of will.
Freedom of will is then illusory, something that a god deceives us into
thinking we have..
>
> That's point number one. The laws of physics prove that to be a true
> statement.
>
> Point number two, by labelling free will actions as completely
> unpredictable he has painted himself into a corner with gallons of thick,
> black tar that won't dry for years...
No one said that one's actions are completely unpredictable.
The issue is whether they are completely predictable.
If they are, as those hawking some godists claim, then that prohibits
any freedom of thought or action.
>
> What is it, in his world view, that has put limits on his will?
The fact that all my choices are known to some godling in advance means
that they are all determined in advance.
>
> Hmmm? Go ahead, ask him; is he free to kill another human being in cold
> blood, for pleasure? Would he kill another human being in cold blood, for
> pleasure?
According to you, it is predetermined, and I have no choice ini the
matter.
>
> If he says no to the second question then it is true that there is no
> free will. If he says yes, contact the police.
>
> > You persist in the LOGICAL error of confusing KNOWING what will happen,
> > in this case a result of perfect knowledge UNCONSTRAINED BY TIME, with
> > MAKING it happen....
If some godling REALLY knows what will happen, how can it not happen?
>
> You seem to confuse making it happen with allowing it to happen.
You seem to conflate expectation with certainty.
>
> > You whine like
> > a little bitch....
Fasgnadh is the whiner. Whether he is bitchlike, I leave to the
evaluation of his moster, whether that be god or dog, or both.
> > Your basic thesis that prediction and choice are incompatible is
> > disproven!
Not by you, and not yet by anyone.
>
> So, what do prediction and choice have to do with predestination, apart
> from fuck all?
Unless we have choices, all our actions are predestined, and if they are
predestined, we have no real choices, all our choices are predetermined,
thus not real choices at all.
Kadaitcha Man
> According to you, it is predetermined, and I have no choice ini the
> matter.
You fuckwitted atheist shitbag. I neither suggested nor implied such a
thing.
--
Test signature
Dinner tonight:
Stale beagle heart accentuated with underdone gumboil inside used warthog
droppings accompanied by impure tripe on top of execrable discarded
douchebags, arranged in a chilled saucepan stuffed with rare medley of
garlic, cancerous growth and artichoke in melted cheese, a side of
macaque eyeballs and a bowl of emulsified sweat and grease from the
chef's forehead.
Virgil
Kadaitcha Man <an...@no.email> wrote:
> Some insectivorous fellator named Virgil screaked:
>
> > According to you, it is predetermined, and I have no choice ini the
> > matter.
>
> You fuckwitted atheist shitbag. I neither suggested nor implied such a
> thing.
The presence of such descent ti mere ad homs vitiates KM's case.
Kadaitcha Man
You're a fucking netl0oN.
--
Test signature
Dinner tonight:
Shuddersome budgerigar pimple with corn dressing accompanied by
reprehensible blister on top of atrocious heartworm skin and mole scrotum
vinegar, dished up in a bubbling pot overflowing with well-done garlic,
dull leftover calamari and eel, tea, a side of jellyfish pituitary gland
and a teacup of skunk piss.
fasgnadh
> Some microbic cloud of fart gas named fasgnadh skulked:
>
>> Virgil wrote:
>
>>> On the contrary, what I note is that for a person to have free will
>>> implies that his or her actions cannot be entirely predictable by
>>> anyone else, including gods, if there are any.
>>
>> Illogical rubbish.
>
> Well, no. He's partly right, and you entirely miss the point.
Lets see, shall we? B^]
> He's wrong on this: "actions cannot be entirely predictable by
> anyone else, including gods",
But that's the part I responded to calling it illogical rubbish! B^]
You claim he's partly right, but then show he's completely wrong;
[That's also illogical rubbish! B^]
> unless he now claims to be a god that is
> incapable of predicting actions. But then, he can't be a god because gods
> don't predict, apparently they "know" in advance.
>
> There is no free will. There can only be freedom of will.
You have entirely missed the point, and are simply muddying the waters.
Virgils argument, which you agree with me is wrong, is that
"for a person to have free will (an ability to make CHOICES) implies
that his or her actions cannot be entirely predictable by anyone else,
including gods."
My point is that an omnipotent God can know the future, but still
allow humans freedom in the choices they make.
ie, He allows Jesus to be crucified, he sees the hearts of men
and knows what their actions will be, but he doesn't make them kill
Jesus, he allows them their choices.
Virgil believes that God's knowledge of their thoughts and actions
makes them mere automatons, puppets, and God is to blame for their
actions.. The Divine Puppetmaster.
As a parent, I teach my children.. but I allow them freedom(commensurate
to their abilities and in light of the risks). I would like them to
act in a certain way, but COMPELLING them to do so would bring me no
pleasure.. it is only MEANINGFUL if they CHOOSE it for themselves.
If I make them kiss me, it's like some atheist tyrant, compelling
everyone to swear undying love to the Great Leader...
But if they want to kiss me.. my heart is full and happy.
If I know, because it's my birthday, they are going to show love to me,
I have not Pre-destined it.. I just KNOW.
That is the point I was driving home to Virgil.
Now I suspect he will ignore it and slip away because you
have told him he's 'partly right' and then showed, at every point,
that he's completely wrong. I predict he will crow about your
comment and ignore the facts you present disproving it! B^p
> That's point number one. The laws of physics prove that to be a true
> statement.
Your diagram showing that seems to have fallen off your post. B^p
> Point number two, by labelling free will actions as completely
> unpredictable he has painted himself into a corner with gallons of thick,
> black tar that won't dry for years...
>
> What is it, in his world view, that has put limits on his will?
>
> Hmmm? Go ahead, ask him; is he free to kill another human being in cold
> blood, for pleasure? Would he kill another human being in cold blood, for
> pleasure?
>
> If he says no to the second question then it is true that there is no
> free will. If he says yes, contact the police.
>
So you showed him being 'partly right' in which part of the foregoing
demonstration that he was talking ILLOGICAL RUBBISH???
B^p
>> You persist in the LOGICAL error of confusing KNOWING what will happen,
>> in this case a result of perfect knowledge UNCONSTRAINED BY TIME, with
>> MAKING it happen....
>
> You seem to confuse making it happen with allowing it to happen.
No, that is not the issue here.
I'm saying God dos not MAKE it happen (force our choices) he allows
it to happen (gives us free will) but knows what the choices will be.
Linear time is NOT a restriction on an omnipotent deity.
>> You forge posts, I ridicule and deride you for doing so. You whine like
>> a little bitch.... I mock you further.
>
> Wrong.
No. He really does forge posts and I really do ridicule him for it.
And your lack of knowledge means you can't predict, let alone
pre-destine! ;-)
> His free will to do such things is completely constrained if his
> ISP shit-cans his account for what he does.
Bullshit. He has choices, he can go to another ISP!
Your argument here is ridiculous. No one said the choices humans
have are UNCONSTRAINED, merely that we have them.
Clearly my choice to blow your fucking stupid brains out, would
constrain your choices somewhat. ;-)
The point is PRECISELY that all the humans you described have Free
Will.. they can make meaningful choices. When some people make choices,
such as atheist tyrants, they certainly constrain the choices of others,
but as Nelson Mandela shows, even prisoners can make meaningful choices.
> Where is the free will there?
The ISP exercised his, and Virgil can go to another ISP... easy!
BTW, who said his Free will was COMPLETELY unconstrained??? pfffft!
You are being childish.
People can''t 'will' themselves to mutate into butterflys..
but they CAN choose, for example, to eat a hamburger,
believe in God, fuck their wives, or not.
Why is this so difficult for you?
> there is none.
Rubbish, YOUR lack of knowledge of possible choices does not make the
possibilities of choice disappear! It just shows you lack imagination
and contact with reality viz, competing ISPs! B^D
I knew Virgil could go to another ISP, but that FOREKNOWLEDGE
does not predestine or predetermine in any way, his CHOICE!
That is my point to Virgil. My (or God's more perfect) knowledge
of what might happen does not PRE-DETERMINE it.
>> Your basic thesis that prediction and choice are incompatible is
>> disproven!
>
> So, what do prediction and choice have to do with predestination, apart
> from fuck all?
Virgil maintains that if God KNOWS what humans will choose to do,
their lives are pre-destined.
I argue that at every instant they have freedom to choose, they can,
for example, choose to believe, or not to believe. It is not COMPLETE
freedom, UNCONSTRAINED choice, but it is their choice.
Do you agree?
The question arises, if God knows your choices, ie if time is no barrier
to God's Knowledge (as befits an omnipotent being) does that knowledge
take away your choice, as Virgil argues, or merely observe it accurately
and precisely, as I argue.
The problem for humans, and the reason, for example, that we are
not given knowledge of what happens after death, is that for US
to KNOW our future would crush us.
Just as having a machine that can predict our choices in chess
to a degree never before possible, takes away our interest in playing,
or watching the game. WE don't know from moment to moment, of a
CERTAINTY, what the outcome of any given move will be, not even the
grandmaster, but the God of Chess does.
If that knowledge was revealed to us at the outset, we would never have
played at all.
> Do you even comprehend what predestination is?
In Virgil's context: that if god knows our choices, our fate is
pre-determined by God.
In mine, that God's plan can be accomplished irrespective
of our individual free choices.. i.e. If the enemies of
truth decide to crucify Jesus, assuming that will be an and to it,
they will crucify Him, and the choices made by others in response will
ensure that there is never an end to it. ;-)
> I suspect you do, but I doubt that you know it.
You doubt what you suspect to be true..? very good, nothing
frightens me so much as those who are absolutely certain of their OPINIONS.
The comparison we are discussing is predestination and the ability
to predict choice.
If God knows your choices, is the future predestined?
Virgil argues that if a choice can be predicted with certainty, there is
no choice, and the act was predestined (by God's will, making the human
a mere automaton..)
The original analogy I presented Virgil with, to show that
foreknowledge is not predestination, was the ability to predict
Virgil's chess moves.. you don't have to be God to do that.
"In May 1997, an updated version of Deep Blue defeated Kasparov 3�-2� in
a return match. A documentary mainly about the confrontation was made in
2003, titled Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine."
Kasparov did not lose his Free Will, his ability to choose from a vast
array of options. This is the state of man. Choices do not have to be
UNLIMITED for humans to have Free Will.
What changed with Deep Blue, was a deeper analysis of all the possible
moves, and alternative outcomes. It was a brute force method, made
possible because of the vast number of permutations which could be
analysed in a given time, it did not rely on subtlety of insight,
intuition, spatial sense, or other factors a human may use.
Kasparov did not lose his free will, he could still make choices,
(within the paramaters of the game (humans can't simply 'Choose"
to levitate), but his opponent could forsee his possible moves
and run countless possible alternatives, to defeat him.
BTW, the chess analogy is chosen as a simplification of one
part of the debate, we are not certain of the rules of life,
nor are we certain if there are any, nor are we constrained as tightly
as a chess playing machine. But it will give Virgil something simple to
completely misunderstand. ;-)
fasgnadh
Of all the people who misunderstand the argument, you would have to be
the 'least witted' automaton:
> 'We' are all 'witted automatons', and 'we' practice a lot of
> stories, such as yours.
Fascinating, we have the atheists arguing that humans are mere
automatons, leaving only theism supporting the notion that God
made man capable of reason, gave him freedom of choice, and
told him actions have consequences.
As an agnostic I find the theist position more in accord with my
understanding of reality on this point than the atheist position.
But I can now see what it was so easy for every atheist population
in every atheist regime to accept being WITLESS AUTOMATONS:
http://www.thearchetypalconnection.com/images/RedGuardsLow.JPG
...because atheists do not even believe they have free will,
they think of themselves as merely complex machines! 8^o
How sad, when all of human art, music, poetry and religion tells them
they are so much more!
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Fascinating, we have some theists arguing that humans are mere
> automatons
Fasgnadh is the only one arguing that and, coincidentally, the only one
here that such an argument fits.
>
> As an agnostic
Fasgnadh is not an agnostic at all, since he claims to KNOW that
organized theist religion is better for humanity than any alternative.
> But I can now see what it was so easy for every atheist population
> in every atheist regime
It is what those non-theists under STRONGLY SECULAR DEMOCRATIC
GOVERNMENTS do not accept that puts them above theists.
>
http://www.mwmccarthy.com/hdi_v_religion/
>
> ...because atheists do not even believe they have free will
Atheist may believe that theists have given up free will, but consider
themselves quite free of such theist constraints.
> they think of theists as merely complex machines!
Sir Frederick
>Sir Frederick wrote:
>> fasgnadh wrote:
>
>
>Of all the people who misunderstand the argument, you would have to be
>the 'least witted' automaton:
>
>> 'We' are all 'witted automatons', and 'we' practice a lot of
>> stories, such as yours.
>
>
>Fascinating, we have the atheists arguing that humans are mere
>automatons, leaving only theism supporting the notion that God
>made man capable of reason, gave him freedom of choice, and
>told him actions have consequences.
>
>As an agnostic I find the theist position more in accord with my
>understanding of reality on this point than the atheist position.
>
>But I can now see what it was so easy for every atheist population
>in every atheist regime to accept being WITLESS AUTOMATONS:
>
> http://www.thearchetypalconnection.com/images/RedGuardsLow.JPG
>
> ...because atheists do not even believe they have free will,
> they think of themselves as merely complex machines! 8^o
>
>How sad, when all of human art, music, poetry and religion tells them
>they are so much more!
And stories, especially the hubris promoting stories.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> > Some microbic cloud of fart gas named fasgnadh skulked:
> >
> >> Virgil wrote:
> >
> >>> On the contrary, what I note is that for a person to have free will
> >>> implies that his or her actions cannot be entirely predictable by
> >>> anyone else, including gods, if there are any.
> >>
> >> Illogical rubbish.
> >
> > Well, no. He's partly right, and you entirely miss the point.
>
> Lets see, shall we? B^]
>
> > He's wrong on this: "actions cannot be entirely predictable by
> > anyone else, including gods",
>
> But that's the part I responded to calling it illogical rubbish! B^]
How is it logical to say, as fasgnadh does, that what is entirely
predictable is still optional, i.e., can be in any way different from
what as predicted?
>
>
> > unless he now claims to be a god that is
> > incapable of predicting actions. But then, he can't be a god because gods
> > don't predict, apparently they "know" in advance.
To "know in advance' is to predict.
> >
> > There is no free will. There can only be freedom of will.
>
> You have entirely missed the point, and are simply muddying the waters.
Between fasgnadh and Kadaitcha Man, it is all mud.
>
> Virgils argument, which you agree with me is wrong, is that
> "for a person to have free will (an ability to make CHOICES) implies
> that his or her actions cannot be entirely predictable by anyone else,
> including gods."
If one has free will then one must be allowed to choose between two or
more actions, but if that alleged choice is known in advance, it is not
really a choice at all.
>
> My point is that an omnipotent God can know the future, but still
> allow humans freedom in the choices they make.
And, equally, can make a weight so heavy He cannot lift it.
> Virgil believes that God's knowledge of their thoughts and actions
> makes them mere automatons, puppets, and God is to blame for their
> actions.. The Divine Puppetmaster.
If a god were always to know what choices I will make then I never could
have more than one choice I can make. A choice of only one thing out of
a selection of only one thing is not a real choice.
>
> As a parent, I teach my children.. but I allow them freedom(commensurate
> to their abilities and in light of the risks). I would like them to
> act in a certain way, but COMPELLING them to do so would bring me no
> pleasure.. it is only MEANINGFUL if they CHOOSE it for themselves.
But if you knew in advance every such choice that they would make, as
you model of godhood is claimed to know, there would then be no meaning
left, since they do not have any alternative but to do as such a god
knows they will do.
Unless a person can act in ways that Fasgnadh's god cannot be sure of
in advance, that person has no freedom of action at all.
Virgil
> Sir Frederick wrote:
> > fasgnadh wrote:
> >> Virgil wrote:
> >> ...Virgil has free will..
> >>
> >> which is clearly the case, unless he is a witless automaton.
> >>
> >> If I, a mere mortal, can predict all that, the weather,
> >> an asteroid impact, the behaviour of Virgil, how much more, by
> >> definition, an Omnipotent deity which has perfect knowledge, unbound by
> >> time, knows all things.
And such a god, by knowing in advance what choice I will make whenever
it appears that I have a choice, denies me the actuality of that choice
by forcing me to make it to fit his prediction.
> Fascinating, we have the atheists arguing that humans are mere
> automatons
The argument, for those who actually choose to acknowledge it, is that
the existence of a god who knows the future would force all humans to
conform to that future. Thus denying them any ability to choose
otherwise, or to choose at all.
If our choices of action are all predetermined by having a god know what
they will be, where does any ACTUAL freedom to choose exist?
> As an agnostic I find the theist position more in accord with my
> understanding of reality on this point than the atheist position.
That is because fasgnadh is secretly supporting any and all theist
delusions against all forms of sanity.
|><\(\(\(\(\(@>
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> Some microbic cloud of fart gas named fasgnadh skulked:
>>
>>> Virgil wrote:
>>
>>>> On the contrary, what I note is that for a person to have free will
>>>> implies that his or her actions cannot be entirely predictable by
>>>> anyone else, including gods, if there are any.
>>>
>>> Illogical rubbish.
>>
>> Well, no. He's partly right, and you entirely miss the point.
>
> Lets see, shall we? B^]
>
>> He's wrong on this: "actions cannot be entirely predictable by anyone
>> else, including gods",
>
> But that's the part I responded to calling it illogical rubbish! B^]
That wasn't immediately obvious.
> You claim he's partly right, but then show he's completely wrong;
>
> [That's also illogical rubbish! B^]
On the contrary. It is the expected the outcome of my superior logic and
obfuscation skills. You will note that neither you nor Virgin noticed
that I actually did not say at all what I thought was right.
>> unless he now claims to be a god that is incapable of predicting
>> actions. But then, he can't be a god because gods don't predict,
>> apparently they "know" in advance.
>>
>> There is no free will. There can only be freedom of will.
>
> You have entirely missed the point,
No. I know what the point was.
> and are simply muddying the waters.
True.
> Virgils argument, which you agree with me is wrong, is that "for a
> person to have free will (an ability to make CHOICES) implies that his
> or her actions cannot be entirely predictable by anyone else, including
> gods."
>
> My point is that an omnipotent God can know the future, but still allow
> humans freedom in the choices they make.
Yes, but that is not free will. It is only freedom of will.
> ie, He allows Jesus to be crucified, he sees the hearts of men and
> knows what their actions will be, but he doesn't make them kill Jesus,
> he allows them their choices.
>
> Virgil believes that God's knowledge of their thoughts and actions makes
> them mere automatons, puppets, and God is to blame for their actions..
> The Divine Puppetmaster.
Oh, that's the common catch-cry of fuckwits. They demand to be able to
make choices independent of an omnipotent entity and when they completely
fuck it right up they blame the omnipotent entity for giving them what
they asked for. Or they curse the omnipotent entity for allowing them to
continue in their miserable failure.
> If I make them kiss me
<puke>
> If I know, because it's my birthday, they are going to show love to me,
> I have not Pre-destined it.. I just KNOW.
>
> That is the point I was driving home to Virgil.
You will need a sledgehammer and a star pole from the paddock.
> Now I suspect he will ignore it and slip away because you have told him
> he's 'partly right' and then showed, at every point, that he's
> completely wrong. I predict he will crow about your comment and ignore
> the facts you present disproving it! B^p
I pissed him off. I can't be bothered with illogic today. He claimed I'd
said everything was predetermined. I neither said it nor even remotely
implied it. The idiot.
<snip>
> I'm saying God dos not MAKE it happen (force our choices) he allows it
> to happen (gives us free will) but knows what the choices will be.
You cannot have free will if you're bounded by a conscience because the
conscience limits and forces your choices. There is only freedom of will,
which implies limits. Free will implies no limits.
> Linear time is NOT a restriction on an omnipotent deity.
I don't recall saying otherwise.
>>> You forge posts, I ridicule and deride you for doing so. You whine
>>> like a little bitch.... I mock you further.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> No. He really does forge posts and I really do ridicule him for it.
Nice context snip.
> And your lack of knowledge means you can't predict, let alone
> pre-destine! ;-)
>
>> His free will to do such things is completely constrained if his ISP
>> shit-cans his account for what he does.
>
> Bullshit. He has choices, he can go to another ISP!
Limited, again.
> Your argument here is ridiculous. No one said the choices humans have
> are UNCONSTRAINED, merely that we have them.
The term "free will" implies no constraints so when you use the term
"free will" you may as well say "the choices humans have are
UNCONSTRAINED".
> Clearly my choice to blow your fucking stupid brains out, would
> constrain your choices somewhat. ;-)
>
> The point is PRECISELY that all the humans you described have Free
> Will.. they can make meaningful choices.
Choices within limits, which means there is no free will. In the context
of atheism and theism, free will implies that the omnipotent deity
doesn't ever assert its control over individual will. So, if man is
created in the image of the omnipotent deity, what then of man's
conscience and the limits imposed by it?
> When some people make choices,
> such as atheist tyrants, they certainly constrain the choices of others,
> but as Nelson Mandela shows, even prisoners can make meaningful choices.
Off track.
>> Where is the free will there?
>
> The ISP exercised his, and Virgil can go to another ISP... easy!
Limited, again.
> BTW, who said his Free will was COMPLETELY unconstrained??? pfffft!
>
> You are being childish.
No. You are bandying a phrase about but don't know what it means.
> People can''t 'will' themselves to mutate into butterflys.. but they CAN
> choose, for example, to eat a hamburger, believe in God, fuck their
> wives, or not.
>
> Why is this so difficult for you?
It isn't, and don't be absurd.
>> there is none.
>
> Rubbish, YOUR lack of knowledge of possible choices does not make the
> possibilities of choice disappear! It just shows you lack imagination
> and contact with reality viz, competing ISPs! B^D
>
> I knew Virgil could go to another ISP, but that FOREKNOWLEDGE does not
> predestine or predetermine in any way, his CHOICE!
Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg may now be spinning in their
graves like insane Catherine wheels.
> That is my point to Virgil. My (or God's more perfect) knowledge of
> what might happen does not PRE-DETERMINE it.
>
>>> Your basic thesis that prediction and choice are incompatible is
>>> disproven!
>>
>> So, what do prediction and choice have to do with predestination, apart
>> from fuck all?
>
>
> Virgil maintains that if God KNOWS what humans will choose to do, their
> lives are pre-destined.
That's plainly a very misguided view on his part.
> I argue that at every instant they have freedom to choose, they can, for
> example, choose to believe, or not to believe. It is not COMPLETE
> freedom, UNCONSTRAINED choice, but it is their choice.
>
> Do you agree?
No, I do not. If an omnipotent deity suddenly jumps out from behind a
telegraph pole, grabs you firmly by the left ear, says "Right! You!
You're coming with me!" then proceeds to drag you up the street to the
nearest church, just what the fuck are you going to do about it?
There are other problems with what you just said, too, but I'll leave it
there.
[snip]
>> Do you even comprehend what predestination is?
>
> In Virgil's context: that if god knows our choices, our fate is
> pre-determined by God.
>
> In mine, that God's plan can be accomplished irrespective of our
> individual free choices.. i.e. If the enemies of truth decide to
> crucify Jesus, assuming that will be an and to it, they will crucify
> Him, and the choices made by others in response will ensure that there
> is never an end to it. ;-)
>
>> I suspect you do, but I doubt that you know it.
>
> You doubt what you suspect to be true..? very good, nothing frightens
> me so much as those who are absolutely certain of their OPINIONS.
>
> The comparison we are discussing is predestination and the ability to
> predict choice.
> If God knows your choices, is the future predestined?
No. Predestination is the act of an omnipotent deity walking through a
sea of spiritual corpses and determining, ahead of time, "I will have
that one and that one" and choosing to pass over others for no apparent
reason.
lol
--
Test signature
Dinner tonight:
Obnoxious lobster mucus membrane and festering liver with shot to ribbons
poodle abdomen and whale gizzard seasoning, simmered in a turbid pannikin
chock full of tough bits of salami and salami with chunks of almond in
acrid pistachio nut broth, a side of manta ray stomach and a goblet of
sewage.
Kadaitcha Man
> In article <2pS1n.214$pv...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> How is it logical to say, as fasgnadh does, that what is entirely
> predictable is still optional, i.e., can be in any way different from
> what as predicted?
He didn't say that, you nincompoop.
> To "know in advance' is to predict.
Wrong, you nincompoop.
> Between fasgnadh and Kadaitcha Man, it is all mud.
You nincompoop.
> If one has free will then one must be allowed to choose between two or
> more actions, but if that alleged choice is known in advance, it is not
> really a choice at all.
That theory goes out the window if there is only one choice, hey. You
nincompoop.
>> My point is that an omnipotent God can know the future, but still allow
>> humans freedom in the choices they make.
>
> And, equally, can make a weight so heavy He cannot lift it.
Illogical, you nincompoop.
> If a god were always to know what choices I will make then I never could
> have more than one choice I can make. A choice of only one thing out of
> a selection of only one thing is not a real choice.
Wrong, you nincompoop.
> But if you knew in advance every such choice that they would make, as
> you model of godhood is claimed to know, there would then be no meaning
> left, since they do not have any alternative but to do as such a god
> knows they will do.
Wrong, you nincompoop.
> Unless a person can act in ways that Fasgnadh's god cannot be sure of
> in advance, that person has no freedom of action at all.
Wrong, you nincompoop.
Seems you're a nincompoop.
--
Test signature
Dinner tonight:
Gluttonous hobo's nose hairs and clove garnish con unwholesome chef's
pubic hairs and steamed clitoris with sun dried elephant lesion, cooked
in a turbid bucket filled with wilted sundry bits of rhubarb and scraps
of peanut in dog pee, a side of pastries and a keg of creamed duck shit.
fasgnadh
>
I never claimed there were any 'amniscient gods', we were discussing
"IF" an omniscient God existed what would the consequences be, and you
have lost, and abandoned, that argument:
>> If I, a mere mortal, can predict all that, the weather,
>> an asteroid impact, the behaviour of Virgil, how much more, by
>> definition, an Omnipotent deity which has perfect knowledge, unbound by
>> time, knows all things.
>
> Which Fasgnadh cannot do.
I'm not omniscient, dimwit.. but still I predicted numerous times that
you would snip and run from the argument, and you have.
I truthfully represented your position, and countered it with my own,
you snipped mine, and left only your baseless OPINIONS and distorted
misrepresentation of it.
> If he could do it, he would answer all my
> posts BEFORE I post them.
You really are a malign mental midget. My point was PRECISELY that
while humans can predict SOME behaviours, especially of dimwitted
stooges such as you and Syd, (and I have predicted your continued
forgeries often, and been right!), that PREDICTION WOULD not REMOVE
your FREE WILL! So with God, an omniscient being, it would be simple to
forsee your every move, and it would still NOT be predestination.
Thanks for playing. Next atheist dimwit incapable of logic,
reason and philosophical nuance, please! B^]
>>>> You confuse KNOWING what will happen, a result of
>>>> perfect knowledge with MAKING it happen.
>>>
>>> On the contrary, what I note is that for a person to have free will
>>> implies that his or her actions cannot be entirely predictable by
>>> anyone else, including gods, if there are any.
>>
>> Illogical rubbish.
Virgil now concedes the argument, and tries to shift ground away
from predestination to pretend we are arguing the central
atheist dogma, 'the non-existence of a deity' which we agnostics know
is NOT provable! Both Virgil and I, in our argument about
predestination and free will took the position "**If** there is an
omniscient God, then...." Virgil argued the consequence of
God's perfect knowledge, unconstrained by time, must necessarily
destroy human choice and obliterate our Free Will. I argued the
that just because an intelligence knows what someone will do,
does not mean the intelligence controls that behaviour, merely that it
is forseen.
As Virgil has lost that argument, he now steps away from our fundamental
premise "If there is an omniscient God, Then..." and retreats to
the old, pointless atheist dogma:
> Nowhere near as illogical as claiming existence of an omiscient
> omnipotent being
I no more did than than you did. I merely corrected your
misunderstanding about WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES FOR HUMAN FREEDOM WOULD BE
**IF** such a being existed! B^]
It is profoundly illogical, and intellectually dishonest, for you
to claim that joining you in a hypothetical "What if an Omniscient
God exists...?" is a claim that such a God DOES exist.
Just as it is massive hypocrisy for you to assert such a God does not
exist, when you have no proof whatsoever.
When atheists lose an argument they retreat into their DOGMA!!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAA
Now that you have lost that argument, you crawl back into your usual
blind atheist dogma.. for which you have no Proof, and I, as an agnostic
say to you, "as you cannot disprove the existence of God, it is NOT
'illogical' to consider, from first principles, what the consequences
of the abstract concept of OMNISCIENCE would be.
They are, and I summarise for you atheist dimwits who can't follow
a recipe for cooking toast, let alone a nuanced philosophical discussion;
1. Omniscient knowledge, by definition cannot be constrained,
not even by time.
2. If there is an omniscient God, then he knows the outcomes
of all human actions, past, present and future.
3. We don't, by and large, and continue to MAKE CHOICES, with
only a dim understanding of consequences.
4. Knowledge of tomorrows weather, or how Virgils boyfriend
will react when he tells him he's been unfaithful and has HIV
does not mean that we make the weather, or that Virgil controls
his betrayed lovers emotional and psychological responses.
Why atheists like to think they are clueless automatons, rather
than free, autonomous beings is a mystery.. but it explains why all the
atheist tyrannies were dull grey, shitholes of conformity, oppression,
despair and death.. killing over 70,000,000 people before the victims
woke up and threw off the chains of State Atheism.
> who would bother create this universe and then bother
> give any attention to the miniscule human part of that universe.
I have built two houses for my family, one on 400 hectares
tree covered hills, river flat and river frontage, a crop
of softwoods, almond, walnut, apple and pear tress along the
long driveway to the river and along it's banks.. and though
it is heaven on a stick...all of it is as nothing to me..
compared to those for whom I built it.
And you can't understand why an all loving God might create
an astonishing Universe for His children?
What a desperately sad individual you are!
In twelve months among the atheists I have never seen any
of you respond to music, poetry, sublime beauty in any form,
other than to spin and snarl.. and at every turn you reveal
what empty husks you are.
"And if I have a prophet's power, and have knowledge
of all secret things; and if I have all faith, by which
mountains may be moved from their place,
but have not love, I am nothing."
1 Corinthians 13:2
And then, as PREDICTED Virgil Snips and runs to avoid the
issue, and the logic he cannot refute:
<unsnip>
>> If we have perfect knowledge, we know their emotional state, their
>> intellectual processes, hormone levels, environmental influences
>> and thus we can already predict with high levels of certainty
>> that they will go, when the traffic light turns green.
>>
>> If we also know that their engine has flooded, or they have sufffered
>> a massive stroke, that they will not go when the light turns green.
>>
>> Any college graduate of at least moderate IQ understands the
>> predictive capacity of science.
>> The remaining problems are 'merely' the factors
>> which are as yet unknown, and the level of complexity. ;-)
>>
>> The billions of examples where we can show that knowledge enables
>> a predictive capacity demonstrates that perfect knowledge does
>> not remove free will, it relies upon it.
And yet, atheists, because of their dismal dogma, the most empty
branch of nihilism cannot accept that humans have Free Will..
he claims that he is a THING, not a human with choice:
>>> Anything totally predictable has no choice.
>>
>> Strange that you refer to yourself as anyTHING. Things don't have
>> choice. People do.
>>
>> If a bevvy of beautiful women show you a yacht, tell you it's yours,
>> they will crew it, cook your favourite food, serve your drinks,
>> satisfy your every desire, for as long as you like, and no one
>> need ever know, unless you like creating envy.. then we can predict
>> your behaviour.. but you have a choice. And if we had Divine insight
>> into your being; psychological, emotional, physical.. then we
>> could know of a certainty, if you were a limp-dicked, life-hating,
>> self-flagellating, woman hating, ocean-phobic cake boy who will
>> say NO!
But you would still have the choice!
My knowledge of how my loved ones will greet me does not
make them dull automatons, but the opposite.. warm human beings who
have Free Choice.. AND Love.
"For they shall have Life, and have it in abundance!" 8^)
>>
>> You persist in the LOGICAL error of confusing KNOWING what
>> will happen, in this case a result of perfect
>> knowledge UNCONSTRAINED BY TIME, with MAKING it happen....
>>
>>>> That's because you are an incredibly stupid and ignorant cretin!
>>>
>>> That is AN ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM FALLACY,
>>
>> No it's a logical truth.
>>
>>>>> So that those who insist on believing in both are
>>>>> fooling themselves.
>>
>>>> I haven't met anyone so determined to repeatedly
>>>> humiliate themselves in public since Mosley,
>>>> the perennial NKOTY in aus.politics!
>>>
>>> Another ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM FALLACY by the same author.
>>
>> You forge posts, I ridicule and deride you for doing so.
>> You whine like a little bitch.... I mock you further.
>>
>> All of those actions are the result of free will, and yours
>> are certainly predictable.. but I don't make you do them,
>> you choose to be a dishonest atheist forger, deserving contempt!
>>
>>
>> Your basic thesis that prediction and choice are incompatible
>> is disproven!
>>
>>
>>
Kadaitcha Man
> I have built two houses for my family, one on 400 hectares tree covered
> hills, river flat and river frontage, a crop of softwoods, almond,
> walnut, apple and pear tress along the long driveway to the river and
> along it's banks.. and though it is heaven on a stick...all of it is as
> nothing to me..
> compared to those for whom I built it.
>
> And you can't understand why an all loving God might create an
> astonishing Universe for His children?
>
>
> What a desperately sad individual you are!
>
> In twelve months among the atheists I have never seen any of you respond
> to music, poetry, sublime beauty in any form, other than to spin and
> snarl.. and at every turn you reveal what empty husks you are.
IAWTP
Nicely put. Eerily accurate too.
--
Test signature
Dinner tonight:
Dissipated crunchy handkerchief dregs accentuated by steamed fruit bat
entrails and llama penis seasoning on top of detestable rottweiler snot
and Siamese cat eye vinegar in repugnant partridge kidney stones with
lemon preserve, served in a randomly twitching pannikin with a slew of
medium cooked rhubarb, warm particles of tendon and eel, congealed blood,
a side of sheep placenta and a few ounces of clotted crab puree.
Virgil
> "fasgnadh" wrote:
>
> > Kadaitcha Man wrote:
A pair that deserve each other.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Virgil wrote:
> > fasgnadh wrote:
> >>> For Fasgnadh's argument to be at all relevant, he must be
> >>> claiming that
> >>
> >> ...Virgil has free will..
> >>
> >> which is clearly the case, unless he is a witless automaton.
> >
> > In which case, Fasgnadh is conceding the absence of any amniscient
> > gods.
>
> I never claimed there were any 'amniscient gods'
If there are lesser gods, they are not worth considering, so thaat
Fasgnadh accepts the rationality of my agnostic atheism.
>
> I'm not omniscient, dimwit.
In any race towards omniscience, Fasgnadh hs been lapped so many times
that he has lost track.
> I truthfully represented your position
Fasgnadh has never truthfully represented anyones opinion, not even his
won.
> My knowledge of how my loved ones will greet me does not make them
> dull automatons, but the opposite.. warm human beings who have Free
> Choice.
If you can predict their EVERY action and response, then they have no
more humanity or freedom than robots.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> Some microbic cloud of fart gas named fasgnadh skulked:
>
> > Virgil wrote:
> >> On the contrary, what I note is that for a person to have free will
> >> implies that his or her actions cannot be entirely predictable by
> >> anyone else, including gods, if there are any.
>
> > Illogical rubbish.
>
> Well, no. He's partly right, and you entirely miss the point.
>
> He's wrong on this: "actions cannot be entirely predictable by
> anyone else, including gods", unless he now claims to be a god that is
> incapable of predicting actions. But then, he can't be a god because gods
> don't predict, apparently they "know" in advance.
There is no 'in advance' This is so typical of the relative mind
trying to comprehend absolutes.
> There is no free will. There can only be freedom of will.
Good attempt. Fact is, every action has a consequence, and consequence
is how we each become more conscious of our creativity. We are always
free to be active passive or neutral.
>
> That's point number one. The laws of physics prove that to be a true
> statement.
Which also applies to quantum physics, which illustrates (or is
starting to , to the sceptics), the effect of our creative input to
circumstances (effects).
>
> Point number two, by labelling free will actions as completely
> unpredictable he has painted himself into a corner with gallons of thick,
> black tar that won't dry for years...
>
> What is it, in his world view, that has put limits on his will?
I would guess , his belief in limitations, and a lack of understanding
of the quantum effect.
>
> Hmmm? Go ahead, ask him; is he free to kill another human being in cold
> blood, for pleasure? Would he kill another human being in cold blood, for
> pleasure?
>
> If he says no to the second question then it is true that there is no
> free will. If he says yes, contact the police.
>
> > You persist in the LOGICAL error of confusing KNOWING what will happen,
> > in this case a result of perfect knowledge UNCONSTRAINED BY TIME, with
> > MAKING it happen....
>
> You seem to confuse making it happen with allowing it to happen.
Which has a direct link , again, to the consequence, which is unknown
until you become more self aware (of the consequences).
>
> > You forge posts, I ridicule and deride you for doing so. You whine like
> > a little bitch.... I mock you further.
>
> Wrong. His free will to do such things is completely constrained if his
> ISP shit-cans his account for what he does. Where is the free will there?
> there is none.
>
> > Your basic thesis that prediction and choice are incompatible is
> > disproven!
>
> So, what do prediction and choice have to do with predestination, apart
> from fuck all?
If you fuck all,there will be quite a consequence in the population
balance.
>
> Do you even comprehend what predestination is?
The pre destiny (tautological) of a nation. The term nation applies in
this definition, to a number of attatched individuals, rather like the
destin of specific chemical interactions, or a bee hive.
>
> I suspect you do, but I doubt that you know it.
But he is destined to.
BOfL
>
> --
> Test signature
bigfl...@gmail.com
> In article <%pC1n.40$pv...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>
>
>
>
>
> fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > Virgil wrote:
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> In article <290f0c$f2...@gaunt-fleabag.com.venezuela>,
> Kadaitcha Man <a...@no.email> wrote:
>
> If there is anyone or anything that can predict exactly what I will do,
> then I cannot will not to do what is predicted nor will to do anything
> but what is predicted.
Thats the 'wilfulness' at work.It is the consequences which are
totally predictable.
>
> So where in that do I allegedly have free will?
"Just do it" and find out.
>
>
>
> > There is no free will. There can only be freedom of will.
>
> Freedom of will is then illusory, something that a god deceives us into
> thinking we have..
More to do with 'us' decieving ourselves with images restricted by
'our' level of awareness. Do you think the likes of Pythagoras was
either lying or deluded?
>
>
>
> > That's point number one. The laws of physics prove that to be a true
> > statement.
>
> > Point number two, by labelling free will actions as completely
> > unpredictable he has painted himself into a corner with gallons of thick,
> > black tar that won't dry for years...
>
> No one said that one's actions are completely unpredictable.
>
> The issue is whether they are completely predictable.
>
> If they are, as those hawking some godists claim, then that prohibits
> any freedom of thought or action.
If yo have ever been in a teaching situation with many people over
decades, you notice specific trends, for example, 80% may ask the same
questions.
I used to see this situation where each had the same 'combination
lock' to solve befor they developed more individuality.The obstacles
may well be different, but the 'self navigation' is the same.
>
>
> > What is it, in his world view, that has put limits on his will?
>
> The fact that all my choices are known to some godling in advance means
> that they are all determined in advance.
The best parallel within epistomology, is that of the dna code. We are
born with predictabilities, but have an opportunity to 'get over it'
Has there ever been a bettrer example than Hawking?
>
>
>
> > Hmmm? Go ahead, ask him; is he free to kill another human being in cold
> > blood, for pleasure? Would he kill another human being in cold blood, for
> > pleasure?
>
> According to you, it is predetermined, and I have no choice ini the
> matter.
>
>
>
> > If he says no to the second question then it is true that there is no
> > free will. If he says yes, contact the police.
>
> > > You persist in the LOGICAL error of confusing KNOWING what will happen,
> > > in this case a result of perfect knowledge UNCONSTRAINED BY TIME, with
> > > MAKING it happen....
>
> If some godling REALLY knows what will happen, how can it not happen?
>
>
>
> > You seem to confuse making it happen with allowing it to happen.
>
> You seem to conflate expectation with certainty.
And you both seem to confuse certainty with precognition.
>
BOfL
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> Some microbic cloud of fart gas named fasgnadh skulked:
>>>
>>>> Virgil wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On the contrary, what I note is that for a person to have free will
>>>>> implies that his or her actions cannot be entirely predictable by
>>>>> anyone else, including gods, if there are any.
>>>>
>>>> Illogical rubbish.
>>>
>>> Well, no. He's partly right, and you entirely miss the point.
>>
>> Lets see, shall we? B^]
>>
>>> He's wrong on this: "actions cannot be entirely predictable by
>>> anyone else, including gods",
>>
>> But that's the part I responded to calling it illogical rubbish! B^]
>
> That wasn't immediately obvious.
The IMMEDIATE proximity to the Virgil quote it followed wasn't
some kind of clue to you? B^D
Perhaps you best wait for the Picture Book Version. ;-)
>> You claim he's partly right, but then show he's completely wrong;
>>
>> [That's also illogical rubbish! B^]
>
> On the contrary.
> It is the expected the outcome of my superior logic and
> obfuscation skills.
More the latter than the former, although I concede, you,
everyone else and all sentient beings with an IQ higher
than amoeba, have superior logic skills to Virgil. B^]
> You will note that neither you nor Virgin noticed
> that I actually did not say at all what I thought was right.
Oh shit, that's EASY! He SPELT HIS NAME RIGHT!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA
>>
>>> unless he now claims to be a god that is
>>> incapable of predicting actions. But then, he can't be a god because
>>> gods don't predict, apparently they "know" in advance.
>>>
>>> There is no free will.
Then you are a determinist. or confused.
Your claim is simply refuted: I chose to respond to you. B^)
philosophers and theologians have been discussing such
exercises of Free Will for centuries, typically in
the terms that I was using it with Virgil,
human choices; B^)
"...the will in truth, signifies nothing but a power,
or ability, to prefer or choose". - Locke
- An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Book II, Chap. XXI, Sec. 17
Why should your peculiar, idiosyncratic view alter the
common usage? pfffffft!
Locke clearly does not overstate any unrealistic TOTAL
LACK OF CONSTRAINT, viz "I choose to extinguish the Sun"
And in that august company, I have used that common
understanding of Free Choices (from the list of the
POSSIBLE, not of the imaginable)
You seem to be arguing there can be no freedom to choose
unless the choices are infinite.
I disagree.
> There can only be freedom of will.
Oh fer fucks sake, Clearly all those philosophers discussing
Free Will, in the terms I have used it, have not laboured a
semantic distinction between the subject, "Free Will" and
the title of Shopenhauer's book, insightful as it is.
Here, let me present you with the post-Shopenhauer
critique: "There can be no freedom of the Will,
because the will is constrained." B^p
Are we done here.. or do you want to play maypole some more?
To a soundtrack of Muddy Waters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjPezeHN9Hc
>> You have entirely missed the point,
>
> No. I know what the point was.
I said you missed it, as in; didn't address it,
not that you didn't KNOW it.
The argument is not made by asserting the Freedom
of Will over Free Will, but in the acknowledgement that
human freedom lies in choices made, subject to the
possibilities the universe presents. A point I have
made, clearly, you have acknowledged, and Virgil
has abandoned because he is way out of his depth.
>> and are simply muddying the waters.
>
> True.
>> Virgils argument, which you agree with me is wrong, is that
>> "for a person to have free will (an ability to make CHOICES) implies
>> that his or her actions cannot be entirely predictable by anyone else,
>> including gods."
>>
>> My point is that an omnipotent God can know the future, but still
>> allow humans freedom in the choices they make.
>
> Yes, but that is not free will. It is only freedom of will.
I remember seeing the film you are thinking of:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm196974848/tt0106965
I prefer cetacean song to their philosophy.
This one is singing
"Virgil is a bottom feeder
fasgnadh Fin-slapped the little bleeder
Kaidaitcha with semantic babble
muddied the waters, assisting the rabble"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo2bVbDtiX8
This is the substantive argument, not facile wordplay;
>> ie, He allows Jesus to be crucified, he sees the hearts of men
>> and knows what their actions will be, but he doesn't make them kill
>> Jesus, he allows them their choices.
>>
>> Virgil believes that God's knowledge of their thoughts and actions
>> makes them mere automatons, puppets, and God is to blame for their
>> actions.. The Divine Puppetmaster.
Determinism
>
> Oh, that's the common catch-cry of fuckwits. They demand to be able to
> make choices independent of an omnipotent entity and when they
> completely fuck it right up they blame the
> omnipotent entity for giving them what they asked for.
Remember the Hero of the Hudson, Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger III?
The atheists were blaming the God they don't believe in
for putting the birds in the sky!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHA
It was HILARIOUS!
> Or they curse the omnipotent entity for allowing them to
> continue in their miserable failure.
No gratitude. That's why they are so miserably unhappy that
they create opressive regimes to make others even more miserable
than they are! As Proof: The Union of Savage Slaughter and Repression,
Mao's Great Leap Backward and Cultural Devolution, Pol Pot etc etc...
Atheist Dogma - Rationalisng their own misery and despair:
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17456?context=latest
<Unsnip context removal>
>> As a parent, I teach my children.. but I allow them freedom(commensurate
>> to their abilities and in light of the risks). I would like them to
>> act in a certain way, but COMPELLING them to do so would bring me no
>> pleasure.. it is only MEANINGFUL if they CHOOSE it for themselves.
>>
>> If I make them kiss me,
>
> <puke>
You snipped all the context which makes that meaningful, and then,
below, complain that your context is removed, when
it was merely dissected? poor form.
But, there you are, exercising your Free Will! B^]
No one said it would be be righteous, or would not constrain the
will of others, simply that you are free to make choices.
This is the critical point.. all the rest is, as Hume said
in discussing determinism and Free Will, a 'verbal issue'.
Determinism is the crutch used by those who will not accept
responsibility for their own lives;
>> it's like some atheist tyrant, compelling
>> everyone to swear undying love to the Great Leader...
>> But if they want to kiss me.. my heart is full and happy.
>>
>> If I know, because it's my birthday, they are going to show love to me,
>> I have not Pre-destined it.. I just KNOW.
>>
>> That is the point I was driving home to Virgil.
>>
>
> You will need a sledgehammer and a star pole from the paddock.
I was thinking of a Mass driver and a bucket of his own shit. ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
>> Now I suspect he will ignore it and slip away because you
>> have told him he's 'partly right' and then showed, at every point,
>> that he's completely wrong. I predict he will crow about your
>> comment and ignore the facts you present disproving it! B^p
>>
>
> I pissed him off. I can't be bothered with illogic today.
> He claimed I'd said everything was predetermined.
> I neither said it nor even remotely
> implied it.
He probably took it from your denial of free will, ;-)
it wasn't apparent that you actually support it,
conditionally.
> The idiot.
Undoubtedly, but then you were muddying the waters with obfuscation.
> <snip>
>>> That's point number one. The laws of physics prove that to be a true
>>> statement.
>>
>> Your diagram showing that seems to have fallen off your post. B^p
It doesn't appear to have been re-inserted! B^p
>>> Point number two, by labelling free will actions as completely
>>> unpredictable he has painted himself into a corner with gallons of
>>> thick, black tar that won't dry for years...
>>>
>>> What is it, in his world view, that has put limits on his will?
>>>
>>> Hmmm? Go ahead, ask him; is he free to kill another human being in
>>> cold blood, for pleasure? Would he kill another human being in cold
>>> blood, for pleasure?
>>>
>>> If he says no to the second question then it is true that there is no
>>> free will. If he says yes, contact the police.
>>>
>>
>> So you showed him being 'partly right' in which part of the foregoing
>> demonstration that he was talking ILLOGICAL RUBBISH???
>>
>> B^p
>>
>>>> You persist in the LOGICAL error of confusing KNOWING what will happen,
>>>> in this case a result of perfect knowledge UNCONSTRAINED BY TIME, with
>>>> MAKING it happen....
>>>
>>> You seem to confuse making it happen with allowing it to happen.
>>
>> No, that is not the issue here.
>>
>> I'm saying God dos not MAKE it happen (force our choices) he allows
>> it to happen (gives us free will) but knows what the choices will be.
>
> You cannot have free will if you're bounded by a
> conscience because the conscience limits and forces your choices.
I choose to listen to my conscience, and I choose if I will follow it.
The proof is that sometimes I do things against it's urgings..
That's what makes me human, rather than angelic.
I quite like the freedom, otherwise I couldn't use the railgun
on racist, post forging filth like Virgil. B^)
> There is only freedom of will,
> which implies limits. Free will implies no limits.
No more than freedom of will does. B^p
I've already made clear I was referring to choices, not to
completely unfettered, unconstrained choices.
As were Locke, Hume et al
We can't just choose to become a tree, obviously.
(well, perhaps after death, properly planted and
assimilated... but that's another story....)
God knows what Virgil meant by it, you can't even get him to
state his beliefs coherently;
# From: Virgil <Vir...@home.esc>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism
# Subject: Re: Idiot theist tries to change the Subject - Bukakke
Killfiled Fasgnadh
# Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:59:25 -0600
# Message-ID: <Virgil-6F220A....@bignews.usenetmonster.com>
#
#
# I am agnostic and only an atheist sympathizer.
#
# There is no middle ground between atheism and theism.
# But unless you actually believe in some god(s), you ARE atheist.
#
#
# >> you are now a member of that happy band of atheists
#
#
# If you deny being atheist, then you are automatically among the host of
# idiot theists.
#
# So which of those idiot theisms do you subscribe to?
#
# The reality is that when you have deny being atheist, as you have done
# above, you are then theist by default.
#
# The only question is which of set the many sets of gods you kowtow to.
>> Linear time is NOT a restriction on an omnipotent deity.
>
> I don't recall saying otherwise.
But it is a constraint on Free Will and freedom of will,
so both are constrained
I was spelling it out to Virgil. I thought working out
what linear meant would help him prepare for the railgun! B^D
I'm a compassionate guy.
>>>> You forge posts, I ridicule and deride you for doing so. You whine like
>>>> a little bitch.... I mock you further.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> No. He really does forge posts and I really do ridicule him for it.
>>
>
> Nice context snip.
Your 'context' was still there, below, I just pointed out that there
was nothing wrong in my context to your 'Wrong.'
If you want to see context SNIPPING, to destroy all meaning,
see your <puke> above. B^]
I'm compassionate AND thorough! ;-)
>> And your lack of knowledge means you can't predict, let alone
>> pre-destine! ;-)
>>
>>> His free will to do such things is completely constrained if his
>>> ISP shit-cans his account for what he does.
>>
>> Bullshit.
There is your fundamental logical error. Your claim that Virgil's
Free Will is 'completely constrained' is clearly false, he has other
choices.
>> He has choices, he can go to another ISP!
>
> Limited, again.
Nowhere in the serious philosophical discussion does it say
Free Will only exists when choices are infinite and unlimited..
it is an absurdity to define it that way. In fact, you are the one
making such extravagant, and plainly wrong claims that
"His free will to do such things is completely constrained
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
if his ISP shit-cans his account"
You seem reluctant to admit logical error.
Clearly Virgils choices aren't CCOMPLETELY constrained!
tsk tsk (Sloppiness is far from Godliness ;-)
>> Your argument here is ridiculous. No one said the choices humans
>> have are UNCONSTRAINED, merely that we have them.
>
> The term "free will" implies no constraints
If that were so, no one would have used it in serious
philosophical discussion, because it is patently not
the human condition.
Yet that discussion has raged, as it was here,
till you muddied the water
> so when you use the term
> "free will" you may as well say "the choices humans have are
> UNCONSTRAINED".
Bullshit. You are the one who has made the claim that an ISP
canceling Virgils account 'Completely constrains' Virgils choices.
The tendency to think in irrational extremes is yours, don't project it
onto me, when I have clearly elaborated my position.
The WILL is free. But the will does not, however, SHAPE the fucking
UNIVERSE! The physical laws define the way in which the free will
of humans operates. And that term has been used for CENTURIES to
explore the exercise of CHOICE, IN THE REAL WORLD, as I am doing.
It's HUMAN will, not Omnipotent Divine Will. Therefore, BY DEFINITION
it is constrained... Unless you are an avid devotee of The Secret,
(and none of the philosophers discussing this subject seem to share your
extreme, even idiosyncratic, view), then the will necessarily operates
in the universe of natural laws and possibilities.
Do we have "Free will" ONLY if it means we can will ourselves to become
God's is clearly NOT the context in which the philosophical discussion
has occured. It would be absurd to argue about human choices in such
a ridiculous TOTALLY unconstrained sense!
You are not merely muddying waters, you are pointlessly pissing in them!
B^p
>> Clearly my choice to blow your fucking stupid brains out, would
>> constrain your choices somewhat. ;-)
My conscience might give me pause, but then, I might ignore it. ;-)
>> The point is PRECISELY that all the humans you described have Free
>> Will.. they can make meaningful choices.
>
> Choices within limits,
All human choices are limited.
That is so obvious that it is a facile water muddying.
> which means there is no free will.
Balderdash, the entire philosophical discussion on Free Will
would have no meaning whatsoever if Locke Hume et al meant
"unconstrained", infinite choices.
Free will means God has given mankind choice, their decisions are
not pre-determined by a Divine Puppeteer.
> In the context
> of atheism and theism, free will implies that the omnipotent deity
> doesn't ever assert its control over individual will.
As I have argued from the outset!
Free Will does NOT mean omniscient power, humans cannot
will the universe to vanish, but they can choose to believe
or not to believe, to love or kill... all the meaningful
choices, and responsibilities, are Man's!
> So, if man is
> created in the image of the omnipotent deity, what then of man's
> conscience and the limits imposed by it?
I can make choices contrary to my conscience.
Clearly I have free Will.
"So, if man is created in the image of the omnipotent deity,
The Unconstrained, what then of man's inability to change natural laws"?
;-)
>> When some people make choices,
>> such as atheist tyrants, they certainly constrain the choices of others,
>> but as Nelson Mandela shows, even prisoners can make meaningful choices.
>
> Off track.
No, the constraints on our choices are, the natural laws of the
universe, (I can't will myself to float, unaided, in defiance of
gravity) and the constraints imposed by other humans(law and tyranny are
just two examples. (
Any self-imposed constraints, as you have offered, can be self-removed.
pffffft!
>>> Where is the free will there?
>>
>> The ISP exercised his, and Virgil can go to another ISP... easy!
>
> Limited, again.
Free will is the ability to choose from real possibilities,
not omnipotence.
I do not have to have unlimited, unconstrained choices, in
order to have choice.
The will is free, but it does NOT over-determine external reality.
>> BTW, who said his Free will was COMPLETELY unconstrained??? pfffft!
>>
>> You are being childish.
>
> No. You are bandying a phrase about but don't know what it means.
You haven't shown any reason to abandon common usage for your absurd
definition of Free Will being omnipotence. If it were the debate
on free will would have been part of Comedy rather than Philosophy!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAAAA!
>> People can''t 'will' themselves to mutate into butterflys..
>> but they CAN choose, for example, to eat a hamburger,
>> believe in God, fuck their wives, or not.
>>
>> Why is this so difficult for you?
>
> It isn't, and don't be absurd.
You are the one claiming that if Virgil's ISP cancels his account
"His free will.. is completely constrained"!!! B^D
I have made the substantive argument clearly and so well reasoned that
Virgil has no rational response and is routed. You have merely
agreed with that argument, but insisted it must be termed "Freedom
of Will", rather than free will.. without any foundation other than
your opinion, based on the absurd example of logic above and an
idiosynctratically narrow definition! B^D
Centuries of philosophical discussion in precisely the terms I have
outlined, say your opinion has no real weight.
>>> there is none.
>>
>> Rubbish, YOUR lack of knowledge of possible choices does not make the
>> possibilities of choice disappear! It just shows you lack imagination
>> and contact with reality viz, competing ISPs! B^D
You have denied the obvious reality that despite the operation
of an ISP's free will to curtail Virgils options, Virgil can
still use his own free will to make other choices.
That is the nub of the dispute with Virgil, and the determinists.
Your contribution has been facile and in your own words 'obfuscation'.
>> I knew Virgil could go to another ISP, but that FOREKNOWLEDGE
>> does not predestine or predetermine in any way, his CHOICE!
>
> Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg may now be spinning in their
> graves like insane Catherine wheels.
So you are a closet determinist! 8^o Good God.. Virgil was RIGHT! 8^o
The uncertainty principle refers to the effect of observation
and measurement.
Neither are relevant to the example, and it's you who is spinning.
Spin fast enough and you will have your own vortex to disappear into. ;-)
>> That is my point to Virgil. My (or God's more perfect) knowledge
>> of what might happen does not PRE-DETERMINE it.
You previously agreed with that, now you claim that my abstract
reasoning regarding competition among ISP's predetermines
or predestines Virgils choice of actions... a sad regression.
>>>> Your basic thesis that prediction and choice are incompatible is
>>>> disproven!
>>>
>>> So, what do prediction and choice have to do with predestination,
>>> apart from fuck all?
>>
>>
>> Virgil maintains that if God KNOWS what humans will choose to do,
>> their lives are pre-destined.
>
> That's plainly a very misguided view on his part.
And your spin on Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg is reversed
again! pfffft! B^]
>> I argue that at every instant they have freedom to choose, they can,
>> for example, choose to believe, or not to believe. It is not COMPLETE
>> freedom, UNCONSTRAINED choice, but it is their choice.
>>
>> Do you agree?
>
> No, I do not. If an omnipotent deity suddenly jumps out from behind a
> telegraph pole, grabs you firmly by the left ear, says "Right! You!
> You're coming with me!" then proceeds to drag you up the street to the
> nearest church, just what the fuck are you going to do about it?
I will choose to go willingly. Or I could choose to protest, impotently
and unrighteously. Or perhaps I will be so astonished at the
sudden Immanence, I will be struck dumb and quivering...
So many choices...
Is there some reason why you couldn't understand the question?
"It is not COMPLETE freedom, UNCONSTRAINED choice, but it is their
choice."
So, you agree that in the normal course of events what I said is
reasonable, but in some fantastic, improbable unliklihood, I
would not have COMPLETE FREEDOM, and so would still be correct in what I
said. B^]
Thanks for playing. You can return to your world of 'lets pretend' now.
> There are other problems with what you just said, too,
Oh I'm sure I could sort out your other problems just as easily. ;-)
> but I'll leave it there.
Yes, with a case so weak it's best to rest it! B^D
>> The question arises, if God knows your choices, ie if time is no barrier
>> to God's Knowledge (as befits an omnipotent being) does that knowledge
>> take away your choice, as Virgil argues, or merely observe it accurately
>> and precisely, as I argue.
>>
>> The problem for humans, and the reason, for example, that we are
>> not given knowledge of what happens after death, is that for US
>> to KNOW our future would crush us.
>>
>> Just as having a machine that can predict our choices in chess
>> to a degree never before possible, takes away our interest in playing,
>> or watching the game. WE don't know from moment to moment, of a
>> CERTAINTY, what the outcome of any given move will be, not even the
>> grandmaster, but the God of Chess does.
>>
>> If that knowledge was revealed to us at the outset, we would never have
>> played at all.
>>
>>> Do you even comprehend what predestination is?
>>
>> In Virgil's context: that if god knows our choices, our fate is
>> pre-determined by God.
>>
>> In mine, that God's plan can be accomplished irrespective
>> of our individual free choices.. i.e. If the enemies of
>> truth decide to crucify Jesus, assuming that will be an and to it,
>> they will crucify Him, and the choices made by others in response will
>> ensure that there is never an end to it. ;-)
>>
>>> I suspect you do, but I doubt that you know it.
>>
>> You doubt what you suspect to be true..? very good, nothing
>> frightens me so much as those who are absolutely certain of their OPINIONS.
>>
>> The comparison we are discussing is predestination and the ability
>> to predict choice.
>> If God knows your choices, is the future predestined?
>
> No.
That was rhetorical, I have already given the answer and am just
summarising the positions.. avoiding your obfuscation over
'Free' and 'Freedom' bu concentrating on choices foreknown.. B^]
..but go ahead,lets see if you remember it right:
Wit is the garnish on Wisdom. ;-)
fasgnadh
>>> Man wrote:
>
> A pair that deserve each other.
We hope you and your new man will be happy together.
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> Virgil wrote:
>>> fasgnadh wrote:
>>>>> In article <m4_0n.67218$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/10 11:05 PM, * Penelope Marris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Predestination #1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is predestination? How does free will fit in? What about
>>>>>>>>>> man's
>>>>>>>>>> sinfulness and God's sovereignty? Is predestination a fair
>>>>>>>>>> doctrine or
>>>>>>>>>> does it make God out to be dispassionate and tyrannical? In
>>>>>>>>>> this paper,
>>>>>>>>>> I will attempt to answer those questions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Predestination is the doctrine that God alone chooses (elects)
>>>>>>>>>> who is
>>>>>>>>>> saved.
>>>> >>>>
>>>>>>>> If YHWH is the all-knowing, then he must already know who He
>>>>>>>> is going to choose.
>>>> >>>
>>>>>>> But that and free will are logically incompossible.
>>>> >>
>>>>>> Rubbish.. A meterologist KNOWS (can predict) the weather
>>>>>> but they don't make it happen, an astronomer can tell you where
>>>>>> an asteroid will impact a planet, but they don't
>>>>>> cause it to land there, and I can predict your next move in Chess,
>>>>>> but I don't cause you to make it.
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>> ...Virgil has free will..
>>>>
>>>> which is clearly the case, unless he is a witless automaton.
>>>
>>> In which case, Fasgnadh is conceding the absence of any amniscient gods.
>>
>> "IF" an omniscient God existed what would the consequences be, and you
>> have lost, and abandoned, that argument:
>
Oh yes, there certainly are, I married Aphrodite and as befits the
goddess of Love, we had kids, you might have heard of them;
"Children of a Lesser God"
> Fasgnadh accepts the rationality
If only you had some, rather than embracing your lunacy.
>>
>>>> If I, a mere mortal, can predict all that, the weather,
>>>> an asteroid impact, the behaviour of Virgil, how much more, by
>>>> definition, an Omnipotent deity which has perfect knowledge, unbound
>>>> by time, knows all things.
>>>
>>> Which Fasgnadh cannot do.
>>
>> I'm not omniscient, dimwit.. but still I predicted numerous times that
>> you would snip and run from the argument, and you have.
>>
>> I'm not omniscient, dimwit.
>
> In any race towards omniscience, Fasgnadh
> lapped so many times that he has lost track.
While you fell at the starters gate. B^]
>> I truthfully represented your position, and countered it with my own,
>> you snipped mine, and left only your baseless OPINIONS and distorted
>> misrepresentation of it.
>
> Fasgnadh has
> won.
Hands Down! B^]
>> My knowledge of how my loved ones will greet me does not
>> make them dull automatons, but the opposite.. warm human beings who
>> have Free Choice.. AND Love.
>>
>> "For they shall have Life, and have it in abundance!" 8^)
>
> they have
> more humanity or freedom than robots.
...which have more humanity and freedom than atheists! B^]
Virgil
fasgnadh wrote:
> >
> > A pair that deserve each other.
>
>
> We hope you and your new man will be happy together.
Fasgnadh fornicating Fasgnadh! What an image!
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
# Faghdagh - formerly 'Che' - was ostensibly a marxist for most of
# his netlife. He rebirthed himself only recently, presumably because
# defending basket cases like Zimbabwe, Cuba and North Korea became
# simply too challenging even for a veteran net kook.
> > there are lesser gods,
>
> Oh yes, there certainly are, I married and we had kids,
you might have heard of them;
The original juvenile delinquents?
> >>>> If I, a mere mortal, can predict all that, the weather,
> >>>> an asteroid impact, the behaviour of Virgil
But Fasgnadh cannot even predict his own actions, much less mine.
If it were otherwise, he could and would predict exactly what I would
say in response to his response tho this challenge to him.
> >>> Which Fasgnadh cannot do.
> >>
> >> I'm not omniscient, but a dimwit
> >> I'm not omniscient, but a dimwit.
> >
> > In any race towards omniscience, Fasgnadh has been
> > lapped so many times that he has lost track.
>
> >
> > Fasgnadh has
> > LOST
>
>
> >>> If Fasgnadh could do it, he would answer all my
> >>> posts BEFORE I post them.
> >>
>>
> > Thanks for playing. Next theist dimwit incapable of logic,
> > reason and philosophical nuance, please!
> >>
> >> >>>> You confuse KNOWING what will happen, a result of
> >> >>>> perfect knowledge with MAKING it happen.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On the contrary, what I note is that for a person to have free will
> >> >>> implies that his or her actions cannot be entirely predictable by
> >> >>> anyone else, including gods, if there are any.
> >> >>
> >> >> Illogical rubbish.
> >>
> >>
> >> Fasgnadh now concedes the argument, and tries to shift ground away
> >> from predestination to pretend we are arguing the central
> >> atheist dogma, 'the non-existence of a deity' which we agnostics know
> >> is NOT disprovable! Both Virgil and I, in our argument about
> >> predestination and free will took the position "**If** there is an
> >> omniscient God, then...." Virgil argued the consequence of
> >> God's perfect knowledge, unconstrained by time, must necessarily
> >> destroy human choice and obliterate our Free Will. I argued the
> >> that just because an intelligence knows what someone will do,
> >> does not mean the intelligence controls that behaviour, merely that it
> >> is forseen.
If sometning is TRULY foreseen, then it MUST occur, and there is no
option for it not to occur just as if it were commanded to occur.
> >>
> >> As Virgil has won that argument
> >> Just as it is massive hypocrisy for you to assert such a God does not
> >> exist, when you have no proof whatsoever.
I do not assert any such thing, I merely do not believe in your god(s).
> >>
> >> When atheists lose an argument they retreat into their DOGMA!!!
Having dogmas is natually restricted to theists like fasgnadh who have
beliefs to be dogmatic about, not non-beleivers like me who have no
beliefs to be dogmatic about, Fasgnadh has again made a fool of himself.
> >> Now that you have lost that argument
On the contrary, it is fasgnadh who has lost it, but is too ddim to
notice the facts of the case.
> >> you crawl back into your usual blind atheist dogma.
We non-believers in the middle are totally bereft of any dogma.
We accept nether the dogmas of the theists nor thatn of the
anti-theists. It is somehow a delusion of those, like theist fasgnadh or
anti-theists, who worship their own dogma that others must be similarly
stupid.
> >> say to you, "as you cannot disprove the existence of God, it is NOT
> >> 'illogical' to consider, from first principles, what the consequences
> >> of the abstract concept of OMNISCIENCE would be.
I am quite willing to consider such consequences and have done so
correctly, but fasgnadh q uite refuses to do the same.
> >> 2. If there is an omniscient God, then he knows the outcomes
> >> of all human actions, past, present and future.
To know in advance everything that will happen is to prevent anything
else from happening.
> >>
> >> Why atheists like to think they are clueless automatons
Since such omniscience requires existence of a being which we
non-believers do NOT believe in, why does fasgnadh delude himself that
we believe in such omniscience in the first place?
We are quite happy being uncontrolled by your unproven sky fairy.
> > What a desperately sad individual fasgnadh is!
> >>
> >> In twelve months among the atheists I have never seen any
> >> of you respond to music
This NG is singularly incapable of presenting music, so fasgnadh is
being delusional again.
> > they have
> > more humanity or freedom than robots.
>
> ...which have more freedom than atheists!
Maybe fasgnadh lives in such a tyranny, but here, atheists have the
vote, and use it, but robots do not.
# Faghdagh - formerly 'Che' - was ostensibly a marxist for most of
# his netlife. He rebirthed himself only recently, presumably because
# defending basket cases like Zimbabwe, Cuba and North Korea became
# simply too challenging even for a veteran net kook.