The power of prayers vs. The Divine plan

Now, Now, that almost sounds like a declared victory. You wouldn't be bashing my bonce with the foolish hand of hypocrisy??Our post are boring me, as they get too lengthy. Also, in the topic about women, where we discuss the fruit of the spirit, you have chose cease learning what you said wouldn't be fruitless. IOW, I wasted my time there, so I guess we're even.You are correct though, I haven't changed my mind, as I haven't been refuted. Each time I suggest no connection, Asgara gives me a list, and you fail to see the full refutation of M.E. I will keep my views on this, as I think they remain intact.

To mike_the_wiz:Thanks for your reply. Don't you ever read my post? Must I always point out something again and again... ...note, this is the main reason why my posts become so long. Go back and see how many times I have to requote what I said because you continually bring up the same points over and over again after I have refuted them.Big hint: Read my posts!
Big question: Are you truly so shallow that you believe everyone debates with a sole objective to win? How old did you say you were?And for argument's sake, do tell me: Which of your points have NOT been refuted? You point out one, and I'll show you the answer (with quote) from this thread, or I will give you a straight answer in 5 lines or less. Outline how I have been a hypocrite by implying "declared victory" in my previous post (number 195), or retract your above comment. My last post intended to question your integrity (again, *sigh*) in avoiding a debate that you find difficult to refute... ...in my opinion, this "declared victory" comment sounds like another one of your "unsupported claims" (or godforbid, an evasive argument!). I am sorry, but the lengths of posts is hardly a justification for avoiding a debate. When you make a point, and I question it, I will have to write words. When I make a point, and you question it, I will have to write more words to explain/defend what I meant. The reason why my post length increases is because:1) You have questioned a lot of my points, which is good.
2) You have made a lot of points that I wish to question, which is good too.So you see, if you are arguing that my post is too long, ask yourself this: Do you want an answer when you ask me a question? Because I sure as hell wanted an answer when I question your (often unsupported) points. This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Can you read what you wrote before you submit it please? Or at least be so kind as to edit it? Ahhhhh.....see, you only waste your time if you do something that is unproductive. I don't know what you meant by "so I guess we're even", but I have tried very hard to (put a lot of effort into) find out exactly what you're thinking and why you think that way. If you suggest that this is an "unproductive" activity, then what can I say about your mental capacity? Again, my suggestion stands: Name me ONE (1 X) point of yours that has not been refuted, and I'll see that you get a clear and concise answer. Of course, the more quotes from this thread I use to answer your points the more apparent it would be to the audience that you haven't read my posts properly (hint: this is BAD in debates).Failure to provide justification would indicate that this is another one of your unsupported claims, and this will look really bad for you I'm afraid. Well I wonder why Asgara would give you a list? Could it possibly be that she is (Godforbid!) right?Disagreement does not amount to the inability to understand a point. Your refutation of M.E. by analogies has been counter-argued by the flaws in your analogy (a point that you have NOT countered henceforth). Could it possibly be that I understand your point so well that I see flaws in it while you simply refuse to? I have just spent no less than 30 posts in this thread discussing why your views on this is anything BUT intact. And your answer is that you will ignore everything I wrote simply because you "think" they remain intact? Can all Christians induce voluntary self-blindness or is that just a special skill of yours?Please don't make me remind you again that you should reply to this post ASAP inorder to NOT look like a sore-loser.Hint: as a debater, complaining on the length of posts and claiming that you are "bored" are bad practices. If you need to resort to these tactics in order to show how you are not wrong, or why you refuse to reply to someone else's posts, it indicates that you are probably at the stage of grasping at straws.If you have even a shred of conscience in your heart (or a sense of guilt in your soul) you should feel embarassed when you do this. Tell me my friend: are you embarassed yet?Sincerely awaiting your PRODUCTIVE reply. (Hopefully happening within the next decade?)This message has been edited by Sleeping Dragon, 06-04-2004 05:05 AM

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

You're so easily provoked. I do enjoy it when you mouth off.Tell me though, is there a contradiction in your post? ??? - Hang on a minute, didn't you also say: Erm, okay then.As for M.E. How can I understand Asgara if she doesn't explain and just gives a list? Everytime I tell her and show her (including a true example of her own agnosticism decisions) - She asks about a list of God's attributes. So I don't get it. I have shown an example after example of how M.E. might not be there. I will show you simply what I mean, again. And also, SEVEN made the same point.If Asgara says God sees the outcome of humans, in that, people will become agnostic. Is it more realistic to say that God chose for them because he created the universe seeing that outcome, or is it more realistic to see that the human's made the choice, and the outcome is a product of the human's freewill. God seeing the outcome of our choices, (crucial point)DOESN'T remove our choices. You see, the FACT remains, that Asgara CAN become a christian or Jew or whatever, at any time she likes. If you say to her "You're agnostic, therefore, it was God's choice" How do you cater for her future change of mind? I see many possibilities fawking from my mind, many would take pages to explain, yet this debate remains stuck in a rut and is and always will be speculation.If I say "God tell me the outcome" and he says "she will be christian" then she might well refuse to be christian all her life, going against the outcome, and going against HER OWN freewill! Because remember, she STILL CAN CHOOSE, he only foresaw HER decision.It seems ludicrous to me, to suggest no one has ever made a decision themselves and it is all just a delusion because God can see the outcome of our, erm, OUR, erm.....OUR DECISIONS. Our decisions you say? OH yes --> Our decisions. Did I not ask you to choose red or yellow? Did I obstruct you from choosing one colour? The asking induces and invokes ABSOLUTELY and CERTAINLY unavoidabley, untouchabley and conclusively FREEWILL. The only way to remove it, is to force you to choose red.The ASKING eliminates M.E. Even if God told you the final, final outcome of HER choices, and he told Asgara, "You will be agnostic" As soon as SHE decides to go against the final decision. Think hard now, then God WILL and WILL have known that new outcome. Removing the previous God mind continuem to the region of none-existence. In simpler form, changing his memory. If she was told the final outcome and SHE changed her mind, then that would change God's memory, as soon as she willfully and definately decides to change her mind, his memory woul change, but it wouldn't remove his omniscience and it wouldn't create freewill, it would only change his memory. And this is with REMOVING the causality. For all we know, she may still become agnostic, despite trying to become something else, leaving her freewill intact, AGAIN, and the first God mind continuem would remain. -----/----The blue represents the change in his mind, in that God will now see a different picture, and she will have changed his thoughts, as soon as she decided to go against that outcome. Yet he will still know.Simply putting it, freewill is already achieved, and knowing the outcome would only change God's memory if he is truly omniscient.The rather amusing conversation between Asgara and God, would go something like this;God: "The outcome is you will be agnostic"
Asgara: "Okay I won't do that outcome" (Oops, God now secretly knows the new outcome)
God: "Erm, oh, sorry, you will become christian"
Asgara: "No I won't" -(Oops, God now foresees a Jewish Asgara)It becomes silly and what Asgara ends up doing, is essentially completely and suredly going against her OWN decisions. We get an in-decisive Asgara babe, and that's all!!She will simply look silly, "I won't, I'll do this, okay then I'll do that". All we get is a confused Asgara who still has freewill. You need to show how this isn't the case, though I don't see any point as this is all speculation, hence my boredom, not at you personally, but I am starting to bore myself. Okay, since you making me feel so bad, I will reply to that post you wanted me to, if you insist I should. Infact, you don't even have to reply to my speculative rant in this post, as I only made it to show you that my argument remains intact NOT because of your supposed refutations, but simply because my mind can't handle all of the possibilities involved with this TOTALLY speculative debate.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-04-2004 10:11 AM

Would or would not god already know that I would "become a christian" or whatever at anytime I like?If god knows the final outcome and knows when each "change" will be made then it is still following his "plan," what he knew would happen when I was created.If god does NOT know these things then omniscience isn't an issue. If something or someone was the creative force that caused me to be then sole creator isn't an issue.This message has been edited by Asgara, 06-04-2004 12:15 PM

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

To mike_the_wiz:Thank you for your reply.3 important points to make:1) My comment... ...has been (not surprisingly) ignored. (Note: it is 195, not 197. We will discuss the apparent contradiction in 197 below)********************************************************************2) There was no contradiction. The noun "sore-loser" need not apply to the "loser" of any competitive arrangements.I cannot offer a clear definition for the term, since it is a slang. But a loose description may be found with a 2 minutes search on the net:"...No young child likes to lose at a game. But there are some for whom not winning or not getting their way is a trigger for a tantrum or a pout. They'll storm off if their friends won't let them be the captain of the fantasy pirate ship. They'll knock over the checkerboard or walk away with the basketball if they're losing a game..."Retrieved from: Page not found – Dr. Larry Kutner
05/06/04In other words, the term "sore-loser" defines a trait: the tendency to behave in a destructive fashion (as in I don't want to continue this discussion) when they don't get their way (winning? Since you've mentioned it a couple of times in your post that you would like me to declare you "victorious")). Since it is a trait, it need not depend on circumstance: You can be a sore-loser even if you win.For example: "I wouldn't play with him if I were you, he's a sore-loser".In the example above, the term sore-loser is used to describe individuals whose ego prevents them from accepting failure (losing) of any form in competitive activities. This applies regardless of whether any "play" has begun. In other words, you can be a sore-loser (and you certainly display characteristics consistent with one) if you are winning, losing, or not even participating in competitive activities. It is behaving in the way you did (avoiding discussion because you can't refute my arguments, blaming the posts for their length, blaming it on your boredom) that makes you seem like a sore-loser. Perhaps you can see that there is no contradiction now?Perhaps if you understood the concept of a "sore-loser" a little better, you would be a LITTLE embarassed because you would realise that you behaved just like one.********************************************************************3) In regards to your descriptive and wonderfully detailed argument on M.E. refutation, I have 2 points to make, both of which have been made countless times before:i) Actually, Asgara did explain it. She said so in a most concise fashion (unlike my lengthy posts) in post 191. Didn't you read it? To tell the truth, I would say the former. Your argument from this point onwards has discounted the sole creator assumption.I know this because you said... ...which is not true. He did not ONLY foresaw her decision, but He ALSO created EVERYTHING (SOLE CREATOR). These two points are RELATED. Repeated after me: RELATED!Why don't you regress to one of your analogies? All of them describes what you have said PERFECTLY, but if you add sole creator assumption into them, they ALL fall apart. How many times must Asgara and I repeat the focus: SOLE CREATOR.You have missed this --> SOLE CREATORInstant flashback: SOLE CREATORREPEAT AFTER ME: SOLE CREATOR*SOLE CREATOR* Get it now? *SOLE CREATOR*My argument DOES'T work unless God is the SOLE CREATOR, but your analogies (and argument) do not take into account that God is the SOLE CREATOR. So your analogies and argument are INVALID.********************************************************************ii) See this: "Oops, God now secretly knows the new outcome"?By "now", it means that God's knowledge has somehow INCREASED (before, DIDN'T know "the new outcome", now, DOES know the "new outcome").(note: same goes for "God now foresees a Jewish Asgara")Show me how this is consistent with the assumption of consistency (God is unchanging) and omniscience (God knows everything - ALL outcomes prior to creation). This is a classic example of a violation of the assumption of consistency. You CANNOT change God's memory. You CANNOT change ANYTHING of God's. Didn't you know that?********************************************************************NOW tell me if any of your points are "intact" in any way. They either break one assumption (sole creator), two (omniscience) or three (consistency). Yet you refuse to see them as flawed.I rest my case.Patiently awaiting your NEXT reply. (Hopefully soon)Edited to add last part of the argument.This message has been edited by Sleeping Dragon, 06-04-2004 12:20 PM

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Only because he isn't telling us the outcome. However, I'm glad you can see, that if he tells us the outcome, we aren't going to create a freewill which we already have.So I haven't broken anything my friend, as God doesn't ACTUALLY tell Asgara the outcome of her destiny. No. He created Asgara, Asgara's freewill belongs to her, otherwise Asgara would be God. He created her WITH freewill. You have to show that there is no decision or "asking" if M.E. is correct. IOW, I can offer you yellow and red, your freewill is only false, if I say "you must choose red". YOU CHOOSE, you can choose both, the question ITSELF removes any possibility of M.E. Geez!As for post 191, I've already read Asgara's comments. She says she would be created "to be agnostic". SO then, what if she becomes christian tomorrow? Was she created to be christian or agnostic? Or, is the connection none-existent, because the choice is actually hers. I want to address this again. .... BUT GOD CAN> It's only his action of telling the outcome, that would change his memory. He IS consistent, duh! He hasn't actually told Asgara! No, because in actual fact, God only created the universe with his freewill intention of, the universe, and he created humans and therefore Asgara. Not an agnostic Asgara, not an atheistic Asgara. You see, in the beginning EVERYTHING was good as it was intended to be.You will have to give a FULL explanation of "sole creator". If you mean that a "sole creator" as in, Asgara couldn't create anything, like a painting or a child, without him?? You see, what do you mean? Do you mean other gods? Either explain clearly or refer to a post which has an explanation. I am willing to admitt I might have not fully searched the sole creator thing. It's all very well repeating "sole creator" but if you have to show how this is relevant in the post concerning Asgara, and God telling her the outcome. She can ofcourse, create her own destiny, wiz, bang, smoke, explain!!!!!!! If I've made a mistake I'll admitt it, but show me the right path by naming the post concerning a "sole creator". Why is it such a big deal all of a sudden?Even if God HAS solely created, I have said many times that his intention was not evil or bad. OUR FREEWILL causes those things upon us, he was simply not tempted by evil. If he foresees his suffering on a cross, and decides to create the world anyway, are those sins we done, then his fault? God forbid, for he came for sin which needs to be chozen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ANd he payed for "our" sin. He foreseen OUR choices. No. My post was a rant, free of charge, to make up for my lack of activity. My points are not reality BECAUSE God hasn't told Asgara the outcome, in real life. The last two would be broken IF he told her the outcome.I think you are not reading and understanding the significance of my points, or are ignoring them. REMEMBER, in message 191 Asgara says she was made to be agnostic, therefore, no freewill. But think about it, that means because God created the universe, he is responsible for OUR decisions, how silly!!!!. BUT I have shown that decisions ARE REAL. OUR decisions are real - and you know it!If I ask you to pick chocolate or an apple, and I alreasy know you prefer the apple as you detest chocolate, then am I responsible for your choosing of the apple? ONLY!!!!! IF I say "you must pick the apple". I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE CHOICE. This point is undeniably true to the best of my knowledge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!It's very easy for you to just handwave this all away ofcourse, and say "Your argument's not valid" because you either don't understand it or find yourself secretly agreeing with it. You see, the ASKING insures the freewill, you have to address this or it remains intact. You also have to show we don't make choices, and how every choice we make is God's. Again, this is why my argument remains intact, not because of any assumptions. Stop chewing the fat in avoidance of the meat.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-04-2004 03:18 PM

Am I seeing this argument for what it actually is now though?God foreseen our gruesome freewill choices (rape,killing etc)Why does that mean there is no freewill? Surely you just don't like the idea that God "allows" bad stuff, and so you would like to blame him for it. I think I can understand that in this world. One site said "why couldn't God make us all with pleasant characteristics". Yet my argument suggests he did. Certainly the painting was "good" when made. It seems that "freewill" itself is what the problem actually is. Without it, God could have made nice lovely obeying robots, who would not be able to choose. But if anything, we do have freewill choices. This website for example, peopl choose, and crucially - God "lets" them. But for how long? Are you considering the very final outcome of all things? Could the joy outweigh the misery to your mind SleepingDragon? Just WHY is this so important to you, what are you driving at, and do you believe in a higher force?
Just look at how powerful our opinions are on this, do you think you have no real opinion? Do you think you make choices?I don't know if I will continue with this topic now though, it is fruitless.Points/facts as far as human's know; God seeing the outcome of our choices, (crucial point)DOESN'T remove our choices.
You see, the FACT remains, that Asgara CAN become a christian or Jew or whatever, at any time she likes. If you say to her "You're agnostic, therefore,
it was God's choice" How do you cater for her future change of mind?

​

If I say "God tell me the outcome" and he says "she will be christian" then she might well refuse to be christian all her life, going against the outcome,
and going against HER OWN freewill! Because remember, she STILL CAN CHOOSE, he only foresaw HER decision.You simply haven't provided ANYTHING to show how I should or would change my mind about the above.
Untill this above quote is removed I still stand by it as mutual exclusivity is insufficient speculation. I have shown above how TOTALLY removed M.E. can be. The simple truth remains, unless I force the outcome and give no choice, M.E. is false. The analogy of the apple and chocolate bar FULLY shows this, as the choice -->, crucially, fundamentally, significantly and conclusively --> REMAINS.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-04-2004 03:29 PM

The point darlin' isn't whether I am agnostic or christian or whatever...the point is if god is omniscient then he knows what I will be, what I will be later, what I will be 20 years from now, what I will be when I die. IF he is the only being that can create life, and he created me KNOWING what I will be at any given time then I didn't really have a choice. Yes..it appears to ME that I have a choice but in reality there is no choice because god knew what that "choice" would be and created me anyway.IF god isn't the sole creator but is omniscient then I don't have an argument. S/he could know that I would die an ax murderer but s/he didn't have anything to do with my creation...my creator did the creating but didn't know the outcome...THEN I have no argument.Let's try a little analogy (be prepared my analogies sometimes suck )Let's say that Mike is married. Mike also is omniscient, he knows everything, past, present, and future. Mike is the ONLY one capable of impregnating his wife and the choice of getting her pregnant is his alone.Mike, in his omniscience, KNOWS,infallably KNOWS that if he sleeps with his wife tonight, she will get pregnant and the child will be born and grow up to be an atheist and will die an atheist. Mike, in the past, has stated to everyone that he will not accept an atheist child. Mike sleeps with his wife tonight anyway...KNOWING all of the repercussions of this act.Now, how does this child have a choice in his atheism considering that his creator, (Mike), already KNOWS that he will be an atheist before he creates him. The atheism is predetermined.IF someone else got the wife pregnant, then Mike isn't the sole creator and if Mike doesn't know the final outcome of the act then he isn't omniscient.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com

He knows. It's only that HE's not gonna tell you. Nah-nah-nah.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Asgara, thanks for the analogy. I am going to highlight something in your analgoy now, I know it won't convince you of anything - But I will still highlight it, in the off-chance that you will think about what I have highlighted and try and figure out what I mean.The baba writes; Let's say that Mike is married. Mike also is omniscient, he knows everything, past, present, and future. Mike is the ONLY one capable of impregnating his wife and the choice of getting her pregnant is his alone.
Mike, in his omniscience, KNOWS,infallably KNOWS that if he sleeps with his wife tonight, she will get pregnant and the child will be born and grow up to be an atheist and will die an atheist. Mike, in the past, has stated to everyone that he will not accept an atheist child. Mike sleeps with his wife tonight anyway...KNOWING all of the repercussions of this act.I hope you think hard. If God knows the choice, and you think you have a choice, is he allowing you that choice by creating you? Or are you saying that choice is his because of the outcome? Maybe he is creating you with foreknowledge that you will still have a choice despite the outcome. Maybe his intention is very similar to the highlighted quote. Maybe, there would be more children. You see, there is not only an atheist child. Have you considered that the outcome may well be worth it overall? You haven't ridded freewill, you have a problem with the idea of the outcome being undesirable, BUT you are inducing the fact that God must "want" it that way, simply "seeing" your choice and creating the universe anyway, won't remove your choice, it will just "allow" it. Think about it hard, I could just say that he is allowing our freewill even more by seeing an undesirable outcome, AND LETTING US CHOOSE IT ANYWAY. I could argue that if he didn't create the universe because of the undesirable outcome, then he would be going against our freewill. The true fullness of freewill, would be to allow us to choose and atleast create us because of that choice.Now, here's another one. If people (atheists) know that there is no afterlife, and they know the misery it will cause their children, when they are growing up - to pass through the stage where they "need" faith, and they get fooled into religion, plus all the pain they will go through in life, does that mean that when the atheists try for children, they are making those choices for them? Does it mean the atheist's "believer" son is not infact making any decisions on their own, therefore it is the atheist's fault? Why do parents have children knowing their children will suffer in their lives and eventually die?

I'm not sure what you meant by highlighting that portion. What am I suppose to think hard about? I could just as easily have put in a "good" outcome but as you were using me as an example earlier I thought I'd stick closer to home with my analogy.He may be allowing my PERCEPTION of having a choice...As for your analogy, yes...IF....IF the atheist is omniscient and infallably KNOWS the outcome then yes. Your analogy follows mine just fine, as long as you are claiming the atheist is omniscient and the only creator of their children's life.Many people DON'T have children for that exact reason. I'll admit that I was a little more selfish than them. I don't know the exact outcome of my children's lives so I have no way of making any choices for them.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com

I highlighted it to show you my desire. If I want a "believer" child, then I must create them with choice. You see, your analogy shows that there is one child, but there are many on earth. If I want a believer robot, I would design him for the final outcome, and skip the inbetween factor, which is our choice.If you are saying that you were selfish and don't know the outcome of their lives, you still know they will have pain/dissapointment/suffering. But do you se how your knowing of a few outcomes still leaves them with a lot of freewill?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-04-2004 07:25 PM

Are you comparing my knowledge of life with an omniscient god? I created my children not knowing how their life will turn out but yes, there will be pain, disappointment and suffering. There will also be joy, love and laughter. How much, when and where?? I have no idea.If my knowledge of life is what you claim your god to have, then I have no argument. This is NOT what I have been calling omniscience.
Why do you think I keep asking you what attributes you believe your god to have?Let's take that "believer child". If you create them KNOWING they will be believers then there is no true choice involved.We are just going to go round and round on this issue Mike. I know you can't convince me and I doubt I'll convince you so let's call it a draw.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com

Okay, I'll leave you with that last word. I sure am quite bored with this topic by nows anyway, but I am glad I drawn you out, even if I did have to become a naughty boy to do so. Lol.

To mike_the_wiz:Reply to your post:I think you have trouble grasping the notion of apparent free will, so I will use a revised version of your HCL analogy to make it more understandable:Consider if God is a chemical engineer:God made chemical A.
God made chemical B.
God knows that, if he mixes the two chemicals A and B, an explosion will occur.
God mixes the chemicals.
The expected explosion occured.Please tell me who/what is responsible for the occurence of the explosion:
A) Chemical A.
B) Chemical B.
C) Chemical C.
D) God.(Hint: the answer is not (C))Answer this question first, and I will continue discussing the rest of your points in my next post (I promise).Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"