To mike_the_wiz:
Excellent excellent. We appear to be making progress.
Reply to your post:
In message 159 my emoticon has failed to "work". When I said you can admitt I am victorious, I added a winking smiley. It appears you might not have noticed this, as it seems to not show the smiley. It was ofcourse, simply a joke, as I had previously said we should agree to disagree.
Let's just class this as a misunderstanding. Personally, I engage in debates for 2 main reasons:
1) Evaluate my own ideas, revise if flawed, explain if misunderstood.
2) Evaluate other's thinking, question if unclear, accept if reasonable.
The concept of "victory", to me, plays no part whatsoever in the greater schemes of things.
******************************************************************
I never said or suggested it was perfect/imperfect.
I never expected it to be. Analogies never are. I only brought up the point that it is fatally flawed (as in, it does not apply in the world defined by my assumptions) because it did not take into account the idea of "sole creator". Thus it cannot illustrate a flaw in my argument.
You see, I understand your refutation, but your heart beats too fast or something, if you had refrained from the insults - I would have talked more about your counter srgument, in which I was quite impressed.
I apologise for my frustration, though I believe it is far from unprovoked.
Regarding your argument:
(why? - he will still create, but FOR the creating, not the outcome - in this way, the connection seems rather unimportant). This is where a certain amount of speculation is going to intefere with the validity/or lack thereof, of our arguments. You see, I would possibly suggest, that God will do his will regardless of the outcome. Are you saying that if he changes his mind, and adds too much hydrochloric acid, then the outcome might be changed, in so doing our freewill is somehow inneffective? You see, if God changes the "creation" in order to effect an outcome, wouldn't he be going against our freewill?(If the outcome is relative to our lives) You see, if he leaves it, and lets the outcome happen anyways, I could suggest that he is leaving it to our freewill somewhat. Therefore, he created seeing the outcome, and ALLOWING that outcome.
"God will do his will regardless of the outcome."?
You still seem not to understand. His will IS the outcome. The future, from the point of creation, was moulded by (and ONLY by) His actions.
Your argument seems to attribute Omniscience to God AFTER creation (that is, He knew what the outcome of creation would be only after He has created everything) but this is flawed because:
God existed prior to creation (you can't argue this), and God is consistent (You can't argue this either), and God is omniscient (Assumption). Thus God must know the future BEFORE creation.
Can you now see how He need never to change His mind? (Well, to be consistent means that He CAN'T change His mind anyway, by default.) His mind was made up before creation, and since He created the world AFTER making up His mind, His mind must have been manifested in all the events occuring around us in the world.
*******************************************************************
Using the hydrochloric acid example:
If you knew that adding 5 mLs of HCL to a test tube will create an explosion (Omniscience), and you wanted an explosion to occur (His mind), then you HAVE to add 5 mLs of HCL to the test tube (creation).
The only ways for this to NOT occur would be if he knew about the consequences of his actions (explosion) after He added the acid (this seems to be a part of you argument, but I have shown above why it is flawed)
OR
If the explosion was not God's intentions in adding the acid (for example, to create some interesting chemicals in the test tube). Note that if you argue this point (and I think you will), you would be saying that the explosion was but a side-effect of whatever intention He had in dropping the acid. However, given that He is omnipotent (assumed), these undesirable side-effects (explosion) should never have existed in the first place, thus they must be His intentions also.
This is the gist of the M.E. in my argument. The fact that omnipotence (I can drop the acid, or I can NOT drop the acid) and omniscience (I know the outcomes of dropping the acid) leads logically to predetermined outcomes (explosion or no explosion has been pretermined by me, regardless of what happens during the reaction), and the notion of predetermined outcome is opposite to the concept of free will (the chemicals inside the test tube having a say in whether there is an explosion or not(s) - Hint: they don't).
Note that I am not saying anything new. Everything I have written in this post so far came directly from post 107, part 2c. Hence my repeated advice to read it.
*******************************************************************
Using the tape analogy:
In my analogy, the tapewatcher created the footballers yes, but not the footballs, and not the stadium.
Errrr.....no, I don't see why that is. Where did that come from? Are you implying that God didn't create everything?
I simply think God made the earth and even when he "sees" the outcome, his intention remains the same.
See above regarding intentions. If He is indeed omnipotent, the side-effects in the outcome (explosion, in previous example) should not even exist, unless they were part of His initial intentions. Your argument would un-assume omnipotence. Give me an analogy to show this dilemma if you will.
Like with the painting analogy. The painter's only intention is the painting.
The painting analogy is flawed in the same way as the tape analogy. You didn't assume that God created the damaging factors (wind, moisture, pets, etc.) and have foreseen that these factors will destroy the painting. If the destruction of the painting was not his intentions, why create the damaging factors?
If the destruction of the painting was a side-effect of the creation of damaging factors, then there would be a conflict of interest in God's actions in:
a) creating the painting and wanting to preserve it (no damage)
and,
b) creating damaging factors, knowing full well that they will damage the painting. (cause damage)
Huh? But your counter argument shown M.E. as an example. You said that God would cater for the outcome, hence the invocking of M.E. You then explained that our freewill wouldn't effect that outcome. (M.E). Remember? The red and yellow? People said the choice is already known by the predicter, therefore there is no real freewill, cos of mutual exclusivity. Because if it is "red" you can't choose yellow. That is all I am saying. I don't understand why you need to ask me to state this that and the other. I tell you what, just debate with me for a moment, and remember the content, instead of setting fruitless challenges.
I am sorry, but I don't understand even a shred of this. First of all, in this post, I have (I believe) clearly described where M.E. is used in my argument (predetermined outcome vs. free will, see analogies above). This should clear away any confusion, so I would expect your next post to be more coherent.
Secondly, I don't recall arguing the red/yellow analogy at all. Have you mixed up my argument with other people's? What their argument is, and how they came up with it, may not be the same as mine, even if we came to the same conclusion. Would you like me to address the red/yellow anaology? If so, state it clearly and describe the analogy in your next post.
Thirdly, though worded as "challenges", my challenges were obviously requests for you to explain things. I hereby change all my "challenges" to "requests for explanation" to take the sting out of it. It changes nothing, really.
To be honest, I think you are doing these "tests" and such to just avoid the heart of the matter. You see, I am not here to be tested. I HAVE read your posts, why not let us just talk about it instead of insisting I re-read and "Tell you" the where, how and if. This is a clever ploy to avoid the meat, and nibble on the fat.
Verifying that your opponent has indeed understood your argument prior to the discussion is hardly "nibbling on the fat". If you didn't understand my argument, everything you say henceforth may be entirely irrelevant to the debate, resulting in no "meat" produced. I would say that this is rather "the heart of the matter".
My friend, try walking before you run. In the "homosexuality and bible 2" thread, I shown you a link to teach YOU what a contra-positive is, a link which you ignored in this thread. Instead of calling me names, why not bite the bullet and admitt that you could have learned the answer from my link, when I posted it in this topic.
I have replied to your post in the "homosexuality and bible 2" thread last night (same time as I wrote my last message on this thread). Read it and it may clear up some of your misunderstanding. (Note: I haven't ignored the link. I have evidence to show that I have read the thread prior to you sending it to me (read my post on "Homosexuality" forum). So technically speaking, I COULDN'T have ignored it)
I admitt that I can be purposefully vague. I do this for a reaction sometimes, but it's not a crime, it's just the way I am. I am a person who will make many suggestions, and yes, I may forget the nibbles of fat, but I will eat the meat.
Ahhhhh....you see, "purposefully vague" IS a crime in a debate. It ties in with "feigning ignorance" and "unsupported claims" and is regarded as a big no-no for discussions. Vagueness indicates an intention to cover up for what you do not understand and "making shit up" to sound intelligent (not implying that these are your intentions). In the future, try not to be vague, especially "purposefully".
So things like "where did I say this" or "show me how M.E. is there", wel.... you could just tell me instead of "testing" me. You obviously know yourself, so why not try and just say it, instead of trying to make stumbling bloacks for me.
As you can see in my current post, I have explained everything clearly (apart from giving yet ANOTHER in-depth analysis of my own argument, which I have done so in numerous posts already) without using "tests". I hope that this is satisfactory.
I am not Einstein, ofcourse I might make mistakes, I don't even have a very good memory. Now, is there anything you want me to change about my postings?
There is only one Einstein, and he's dead. Memory-wise, mine is not good either, hence I needed to flip back repeatedly to check where my points and arguments are. Changes? Try not to be vague in the future is one suggestion. If you don't understand what I am talking about, ask before you make general claims to avoid misquoting me. Support your claims if I asked you to. Don't ignore my points. And don't use dogma as your argument.
Note regarding dogma:
You may be thinking to yourself "Well if I can't use the bible as my argument, what have I been doing in the F&B forum?". The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of dicussions (that I can see)in this forum:
1) Discussion on the interpretation of the bible. This type assumes that the bible is true, either literally or in metaphorically, and arguments hinges on the interpretation of issues from biblical quotes and culture at the time. Arguments on which part of the bible should be taken literally, or whether Paul's or Thomas's or whoever's account is more reliable fall into this category.
2) Discussion on how/why the biblical teachings apply to the societies of today. The "Homosexual" thread is a good example of this. The bible's autheticity (dogmatic beliefs) is not assumed in this case because participants may hold viewpoints from non-christian sectors of the society. Furthermore, there is a (presumably) thick line between historical truth and truth based on faith.
This thread (Prayers and Divine plan) actually tries to demonstrate how the biblical teachings are inherently contradictory. This means that in actual fact, it should have been placed in the "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" Forum. But as I said previously, I am not an admin, and I cannot do anything about it.
Thank you for your input.
"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"
All I can say is, he knows the outcome and it was me and SD that infact made these posts.
™ Version 4.2
