[Wootloops]

Beckys_Mom, on 22 October 2009 - 05:46 PM, said:

So..............basically you would be passing off a definition given by OTHER believers and not one as seen in your own eyes? Only ones that can give the definition are those that hold the belief....those that done.......cant!!

But see.............here's the thing.....
Id be asking you to define who god is in your own words, on how you see god and not something you have picked up from other believers on how they see god, no, I would be asking you to give it to me in your own words, using your own ideas..and if you hold no belief, you will be up front and tell me there is no such things, thefore you cant define who he is ...not speaking on your own behalf you cant !!!

I define God as an apple. There.

Apples exist, therefore God exists.

But that's my God. Christianity has a different definition, and so if I wish to address them, I use their definition. The same goes with free will. The Juedo-Christian concept of free will is to act outside of causation and randomness, that's the only way God can be the first cause.

[Beckys_Mom]

Wootloops, on 22 October 2009 - 10:45 PM, said:

I appeal to the first cause argument. This argument only has merit if God has free will in the sense that he can act outside of causation and randomness. If this is not the case, not only is God not a viable first cause, but there would be higher forces which act upon him, making him not God.

You use such a small word with a big meaning - IF... If god this and IFod that <---there is NO IF , when you are so sure god doesnt exist

[questionmark]

Wootloops, on 23 October 2009 - 12:54 AM, said:

I define God as an apple. There.

Apples exist, therefore God exists.

But that's my God. Christianity has a different definition, and so if I wish to address them, I use their definition. The same goes with free will. The Juedo-Christian concept of free will is to act outside of causation and randomness, that's the only way God can be the first cause.

I see, and the apple forces you to do bad things for lack of free will...interesting...very interesting...

[Wootloops]

Beckys_Mom, on 22 October 2009 - 05:57 PM, said:

You use such a small word with a big meaning - IF... If god this and IFod that <---there is NO IF , when you are so sure god doesnt exist

It's called assuming your opponent's position for sake of argument.

[Beckys_Mom]

Wootloops, on 22 October 2009 - 10:54 PM, said:

I define God as an apple. There.

Apples exist, therefore God exists.

Weak answer LOL and thats it? we are surrounded by gods..eating them, baking god into pies..

come on man give better than that..basically you are now trying to make it all out that you believe in god and he is an apple LMAO and yet you want us to see your way and side with you and we all chant - free will doesnt exist............

is that all you got? COME ON LMAO...you make a thread..you claim something doesnty exist and yet, at the same time, you cna tell each and every last one of us, how we can or cant define what you think doesnt exist!!!!!!!

You even had some funny idea to tell me before hand that there is no such thing as a WHOLE <---so from that you figure as a whole doesnt mean - in general? so going by your line of thinking - the term - IN GENERAL doesnt exist <---for thats what I mean when I say as a whole

This post has been edited by Beckys_Mom: 22 October 2009 - 10:08 PM

[Beckys_Mom]

Wootloops, on 22 October 2009 - 11:03 PM, said:

It's called assuming your opponent's position for sake of argument.

Its called truth...when you use the word IF and line it nextto - god exist or not <---that is being TRUTHFUL mate...it means you know that man cannot prove OR disprove gods existance


but thats not your case...you think god is an apple LOL...so I guess if I toss out the cores, I am committing blasphemy??......if I bake apple pie..is that sacrafice?? LOL

This post has been edited by Beckys_Mom: 22 October 2009 - 10:07 PM

[maximaldecimal]

A note on causality
causality is a philisophical arguement that states that through the logic of every effect having a cause there would either have to be a first uncaused cause or an infinite loop of causes. This arguement is used to debate the existence of the devine from both points of view and is philosophic rhetoric used to get young philosophers thinking.
On causality and free will
At any given time there are a good number of factors inherent in a scene. These are the effect of previous causes. These causes are precieved by the individual as experience, what has already happened. There are then a number of different ways to act based on this given experience. Ultimately the person has to choose which of these actions to take. This chosen action then becomes effect. The choice of actions based on experience is indicative of free will. Randomness only represents chaos in the system and is indeed an effect of perception as well. Actions that may seem random are indeed caused and thus are an effect of free will and chaos in the system. Thus causality causes randomness. Free will is thusly an effect of experience applied to circumstance and far more complex than merely cause or chaos.

[FurthurBB]

marabod, on 22 October 2009 - 06:45 AM, said:

This is wrong because you consider not an event itself separately, but a logical chain of the events. What we call "life" is only an infinitively short moment of "now" which immediately becomes "past", being replaced by a new "now" - your reasoning belong to another reference frame, which includes the past only, in which someone was hungry and decided to eat. Time is irreversible, but only when the events are already in the past. When you are at the current "now" you have free will to make your reasonings.

Moreover, you are not talking "free will" in religious sense, as you only consider the choice between several options - but in this case what is the difference between us and the animals? A bird has a free choice, which worm to eat, a mad dog has a choice to run right or left way. But the religions say they do not have free will. This means religions do not see a simple choice of action as a manifestation of free will.

We acquired free will together with the knowledge of Good and Evil, this is what the Bible says. From this it follows that free will is not just a choice, but a MORAL CHOICE between good and evil we are intended to make to someone else. Free will is what makes us different from the animals, and the absence of free will is what makes the animals innocent, as they cannot do evil deliberately, knowing they are doing evil, so they cannot commit a sin. This was known 2000 years ago!

The problem with this is that animals some animals are cruel to amuse themselves, which is evil, and can be benevolent to the young of other animals. I do not believe we are the only animals that make moral choices.

[Beckys_Mom]

questionmark, on 22 October 2009 - 10:58 PM, said:

I see, and the apple forces you to do bad things for lack of free will...interesting...very interesting...

Im glad he didnt describe god as a banana...for I love my splits with hot chocolate sauce..and I dont fancy being condemed LOL

This post has been edited by Beckys_Mom: 22 October 2009 - 10:10 PM

[Wootloops]

questionmark, on 22 October 2009 - 05:58 PM, said:

I see, and the apple forces you to do bad things for lack of free will...interesting...very interesting...

No, causation and randomness forces me to do bad things. The entirety of my will, is manifested through those two things. If I were to kill someone, there would have been a chain of causation which lead to that moment, with perhaps some randomness involved if randomness truly exists. My will does not direct causation and randomness, my will is emergent from causation and randomness.

[lookingfortruth]

Free will is a myth, you can conciously make choices, but I believe based on the individual, and events that have happened to you, you'd make the same choices as you have this lifetime as you would living it over again.

[questionmark]

Wootloops, on 23 October 2009 - 01:10 AM, said:

No, causation and randomness forces me to do bad things. The entirety of my will, is manifested through those two things. If I were to kill someone, there would have been a chain of causation which lead to that moment, with perhaps some randomness involved if randomness truly exists. My will does not direct causation and randomness, my will is emergent from causation and randomness.

You are the one taking the decision at the end, not causation. But it is much easier to say: Tom, Tom the Massa made us do it...we ain't not bad!, instead of taking responsibility for one's actions, regardless of the circumstances.

[Beckys_Mom]

Wootloops, on 22 October 2009 - 11:10 PM, said:

No, causation and randomness forces me to do bad things. The entirety of my will, is manifested through those two things. If I were to kill someone, there would have been a chain of causation which lead to that moment, with perhaps some randomness involved if randomness truly exists. My will does not direct causation and randomness, my will is emergent from causation and randomness.

And how would you know if god (your apple) hasnt forced you to do anything? I mean you just gave a short vague description of your god.....


What if I asked you, -- So why do you see god as an apple and not an orange or a par or a grape?? why the apple? is your faith a FACT?

[lookingfortruth]

Wootloops, on 22 October 2009 - 11:10 PM, said:

No, causation and randomness forces me to do bad things. The entirety of my will, is manifested through those two things. If I were to kill someone, there would have been a chain of causation which lead to that moment, with perhaps some randomness involved if randomness truly exists. My will does not direct causation and randomness, my will is emergent from causation and randomness.

chains of events lead to more events, but what leads to randomness? other chains of events and what causes those? more chains of events. so based on the chains of events you could say that the randomness never existed, its a cause of other non random events. so your events could be based off other events you call randomness, which maybe isn't so random. lol

[Wootloops]

Beckys_Mom, on 22 October 2009 - 06:14 PM, said:

And how would you know if god (your apple) hasnt forced you to do anything? I mean you just gave a short vague description of your god.....

Then God would act as a cause.

Beckys_Mom, on 22 October 2009 - 06:14 PM, said:

What if I asked you, -- So why do you see god as an apple and not an orange or a par or a grape?? why the apple? is your faith a FACT?

I don't actually believe God is an apple.