|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
 Posted - 06/16/2011 : 18:38:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
You have caught on to his methodology. He literally has to ignore accepted definitions! His arguments fall to pieces if he can't change definitions to suit himself.
|
Which definition are you using? I haven't seen any where "unpredictability" is part of the definition. |
 |
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2011 : 20:53:53 [Permalink]
|
KingDavid8 says
| No, I believed in God before I believed in the Bible. I was a Deist for about seven years before becoming a Christian, and not all of my beliefs about God come from the Bible. |
So you admit that your belief about an omniscient god that gives freewill isn't biblical and is just your belief which you have no evidence of at all?
| But, once again, we're discussing whether God's hypothetical omniscience would be incompatible with our having free will, so can we get back to that topic? |
Yeah, we can get back to the topic which I don't know if you actually read the original post but this topic is actually about mythicists and their beliefs. Why are you discussing freewill in attempt to hijack a thread?
| No, I'd love for you to stay in the discussion, but you seem to want to get it seriously side-tracked. |
Who is sidetracked? Are you discussing mythicism? I am; your god is a myth.
| Okay, then I'll continue to the discuss the topic with those who want to do so. |
Since you want to get technical, then do so in a thread that the actual topic is about freewill. This thread isn't.
| Again, whether God exists and gave us free will is NOT what we're discussing here. We're discussing whether God's hypothetical omniscience is incompatible with Him having given us free will. |
Again, you have to take it into the hypothetical because there is no evidence for any of your claims.
| I'm not making any claims, except that God (hypothetically) having given us free will would not be incompatible with God (hypothetically) being omniscient. That's what I'm arguing for, and the rest of the forum is arguing against. We sometimes get side-tracked with related issues, but we aren't debating whether God actually exists, is omniscient, or gave us free will. The other members are granting certain things for the sake of argument, which I'm grateful for, but we aren't debating what you seem to want us to debate. |
Then what kingdavid said this?
| But that's not to say that He had no free will at all. He could still choose what to do, what to say, where to go, etc. |
That looks like a claim to me.
| If anyone here wants to debate that issue, I'd suggest you create another forum so you can debate it with them. |
Yeah, why don't you instead of hijacking this thread to turn it into your hypothetical mumbo-jumbo?
| At that point, yes. But then we got into the issue of whether God's omniscience would be incompatible with our free will, which is what we've been debating ever since. |
So just because you changed the rules of the game during the game then I have to follow suit? No.
Great, but what I'm looking for is evidence for the claims (such as the stories where these things happen), not someone just repeating the claims and saying "look at me, I'm an Egyptologist!"
Just about anyone can call themselves an "Egyptologist" or a "scholar", even if they don't know what they're talking about. What do you think happened when the Horus claims were submitted to twenty of the world's leading Egyptologists? There's an excellent article about the results here: http://hnn.us/articles/6641.html |
No, not just about anyone can call themselves an "Egyptologists" or a "scholar" but just about anyone can call themselves an "Apologist" and act as if they have some type of authority to scrutinize or claim that real Egyptologists and Scholars are just repeating claims. Did you even go to or graduate from college?
But on to your source:
Mr. Gasque committed a lie of omission in that article when he says:
"As it turns out, Kuhn was a high school language teacher who was an enthusiastic proponent of Theosophy, a prodigious author and lecturer, who self-published most of his books."
He leaves out that Kuhn got his PhD at Columbia University and if Columbia University thinks or thought that Theosophy was a legitimate subject, then by what authority do you have to dismiss his degree by a simple wave of your hand?
http://www.mountainman.com.au/ab_kuhn.html
http://pc93.tripod.com/abbskcth.htm
And not only that, this article isn't even discussing ZG claims, it is discussing the claims by Tom Harpur who was a Priest and a professor of New Testament at Wycliffe College.
The only point that the article mentions that is in Zeitgeist is "That Horus also "had a virgin birth, and that in one of his roles, he was 'a fisher of men with twelve followers."
And yet, he mentions that not one of the Egyptologists disagrees with the virgin birth but only about the "12 followers" and then the other claims by Harpur.
Then he goes on to say:
"Toward the end of the third Christian century, the leaders of the church began to misinterpret the Bible. Prior to this, no one ever understood the Bible to be literally true. Earlier, in keeping with all other religions, the narrative material of the Hebrew and Greek Bible was interpreted as myth or symbol, read as allegory and metaphor rather than as history."
Do you agree that the bible is not literal and is allegory and an actual myth? It would actually make it a historical fiction because it mentions historical events and places
And then he says (referring to Harpur):
"He does not quote any contemporary Egyptologist or recognized academic authority on world religions nor appeal to any of the standard reference books in Egyptology or to any primary sources."
But yet, Harpur does quote contemporary Egyptologists namely Eric Hornung and Jan Assmanand
Raymond Faulkner who was an Egyptologist and he also used his translation of the Book of the Dead.
So this man, Mr. Gasque, lied.
This is the type of research you do boblackey,oops I mean kingdavid. This is the type of lies that you and your fellow Christians have to tell yourselves to maintain your facade.
| Actually, for most of the claims, we don't even have the "teddy bear photo", but just the equivalent of someone saying that bigfoot exists without providing ANY sort of photo. |
Actually, for most of the claims we have more than enough scholars that are saying it. Just because you do not believe them, doesn't make what they are saying false.
| No, if I want to prove what they are saying is wrong, I can just point out that these people repeating the claims aren't providing evidence to back most of them up. Skeptics demand at least SOME sort of evidence before they'll believe a claim. Someone simply repeating the claim doesn't suffice. |
Yes, and as we will see, there is evidence. Too bad you haven't given any for your hypothetical god being omniscient and giving freewill. I am sure that the skeptics will demand at least some sort of evidence before they will believe your claim. Simply repeating a claim doesn't suffice.
Maybe next we will discuss my hypothetical fire breathing dragon that lives in my garage that gives me superpowers.
| Pointing out that the people who are spreading these claims can't provide evidence for most of them? No, I've been doing that for years. |
But yet, I have repeatedly shown you the evidence and repeatedly you deny that you have seen it or you refuse to look at it because you said it was in the wrong format. This shows for one that you haven't researched it other than reading odd websites and Encyclopedia entries and two that you think that repeating the claim that you debunked Zeitgeist enough times will actually make it true.
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
| Edited by - changingmyself on 06/16/2011 21:03:48 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2011 : 08:28:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
You're saying that "randomness" and "omniscient being" are incompatible, so let's try this. Assume the "randomness" to be an undeniable fact, and let's try putting "omniscient being" to the test. |
Look, you have already agreed that a "truly random" number generator is something we don't know how to make. You asserted, "there's no reason that an omnipotent computer programmer would be unable to do so," but in fact there are solid, real-world reasons for thinking so. The fact that computers are completely deterministic, for one.
So in essence, by demanding that we assume that some programmer is able to create something that doesn't now exist and for which we have good empirical reasons to think cannot exist, you're demanding that we assume that magic can happen.
It's the same thing with your demand that we assume that you have free will. You don't, period. The fact that omniscience denies both randomness and free will is simply a logical icing to the empirical cake.
I'm done assuming that things which don't exist do, just to argue with you, KingDavid8. The intellectual exercise isn't interesting enough.| I'll gladly go with the Cambridge Dictionary definition: "happening, done or chosen by chance rather than according to a plan". |
That ensures that no computer will be able to create random numbers. Computers that fail to follow their plans, we call "broken." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2011 : 15:11:08 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| I'm done assuming that things which don't exist do, just to argue with you, KingDavid8. The intellectual exercise isn't interesting enough. |
It wouldn't be so bad if he would argue honestly. The constant change of definitions, the refusal to acknowledge logic, the constant shifting of goal posts, and the refusal to even recognize the problems with the proposition of omnipotence (problems that have been recognized and argued for thousands of years, he just waves his hand and says so what!), all that is what has made this thread uninteresting.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2011 : 18:37:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
KingDavid8 says
| No, I believed in God before I believed in the Bible. I was a Deist for about seven years before becoming a Christian, and not all of my beliefs about God come from the Bible. |
So you admit that your belief about an omniscient god that gives freewill isn't biblical and is just your belief which you have no evidence of at all? |
Twisting my words much?
| But, once again, we're discussing whether God's hypothetical omniscience would be incompatible with our having free will, so can we get back to that topic? |
Yeah, we can get back to the topic which I don't know if you actually read the original post but this topic is actually about mythicists and their beliefs. Why are you discussing freewill in attempt to hijack a thread? |
Dave W. brought up the issue of free will back on page 7. I just responded to it. If you don't like the thread being "hijacked", feel free to take it up with him.
| Okay, then I'll continue to the discuss the topic with those who want to do so. |
Since you want to get technical, then do so in a thread that the actual topic is about freewill. This thread isn't. |
Yes, it's been about this for about 15-20 pages now.
Then what kingdavid said this?
| But that's not to say that He had no free will at all. He could still choose what to do, what to say, where to go, etc. |
That looks like a claim to me. |
Yes, I was pointing out that Jesus not having a choice in believing that He was who He was doesn't mean He didn't have free will at all in any matters.
| At that point, yes. But then we got into the issue of whether God's omniscience would be incompatible with our free will, which is what we've been debating ever since. |
So just because you changed the rules of the game during the game then I have to follow suit? No. |
I didn't change any rules. The issue came up and I responded to it.
| No, not just about anyone can call themselves an "Egyptologists" or a "scholar" but just about anyone can call themselves an "Apologist" and act as if they have some type of authority to scrutinize or claim that real Egyptologists and Scholars are just repeating claims. |
Yes, just about anyone can call themselves an "apologist", just as just about anyone can call themselves an "egyptologist" or a "scholar". It's not about who applies what titles to themselves, but about what the evidence shows in regards to the claims. I know that we're just waiting for you and Teched's evidence to get formatted and posted, and I'll respond to it then.
| Did you even go to or graduate from college? |
Yes to both. I graduated from Western Michigan University in 1993.
| The only point that the article mentions that is in Zeitgeist is "That Horus also "had a virgin birth, and that in one of his roles, he was 'a fisher of men with twelve followers." |
Yes, the article was about a largely different set of claims that Christ-mythers repeat, and which were largely dismissed by the Egyptologists.
| And yet, he mentions that not one of the Egyptologists disagrees with the virgin birth |
He does? Where?
Then he goes on to say:
"Toward the end of the third Christian century, the leaders of the church began to misinterpret the Bible. Prior to this, no one ever understood the Bible to be literally true. Earlier, in keeping with all other religions, the narrative material of the Hebrew and Greek Bible was interpreted as myth or symbol, read as allegory and metaphor rather than as history." |
He's telling us what Harper et al. are claiming, not that he's agreeing with it.
| Do you agree that the bible is not literal and is allegory and an actual myth? |
The Bible contains many different types of writing, including allegory, law, history, prophecy, letters and poetry. So it depends which books of the Bible you're talking about.
| Actually, for most of the claims, we don't even have the "teddy bear photo", but just the equivalent of someone saying that bigfoot exists without providing ANY sort of photo. |
Actually, for most of the claims we have more than enough scholars that are saying it. Just because you do not believe them, doesn't make what they are saying false. |
True, but the fact that they can't back their claims up with evidence makes them very hard for a rational person to believe.
| No, if I want to prove what they are saying is wrong, I can just point out that these people repeating the claims aren't providing evidence to back most of them up. Skeptics demand at least SOME sort of evidence before they'll believe a claim. Someone simply repeating the claim doesn't suffice. |
Yes, and as we will see, there is evidence. |
Great. I look forward to seeing it.
| Pointing out that the people who are spreading these claims can't provide evidence for most of them? No, I've been doing that for years. |
But yet, I have repeatedly shown you the evidence and repeatedly you deny that you have seen it or you refuse to look at it because you said it was in the wrong format. |
Yes, I was asking you to provide the evidence, not to just shoot me a link to someone's else's videos where they just repeat the claims. If the evidence is in the videos, then you wouldn't have had such a problem providing it.
| This shows for one that you haven't researched it other than reading odd websites and Encyclopedia entries and two that you think that repeating the claim that you debunked Zeitgeist enough times will actually make it true. |
Yeah, you think that me debunking Zeitgeist means nothing, since I'm a Christian. But as I pointed out to you, even irreligious skeptical websites have debunked it, such as http://www.skeptic.com , http://www.conspiracyscience.com and http://webskeptic.wikidot.com. I have yet to see any website take a skeptical look at these claims and find them valid. Have you? |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2011 : 18:55:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Look, you have already agreed that a "truly random" number generator is something we don't know how to make. You asserted, "there's no reason that an omnipotent computer programmer would be unable to do so," but in fact there are solid, real-world reasons for thinking so. The fact that computers are completely deterministic, for one. |
An omnipotent computer programmer would almost certainly be able to make one that isn't completely deterministic.
| So in essence, by demanding that we assume that some programmer is able to create something that doesn't now exist and for which we have good empirical reasons to think cannot exist, you're demanding that we assume that magic can happen. |
The fact that we think it can't exist doesn't mean it absolutely can't. Hypothetically, one may exist someday. So, hypothetically, an omnipotent computer programmer could know how to make one.
And even if it can't possibly happen without "magic", so what? Fine, let's say that there's an omnipotent, magical computer programmer who makes a computer that can generate truly random numbers. All we're questioning is whether the computer programmer can be omniscient if his computer generates random numbers. How the computer manages to generate them, through technology or magic, is irrelevant to the discussion. If you don't like assuming it's magic, then let's assume it's a type of technology we can't comprehend quite yet. I don't care how the randomness happens, the question is what happens if the computer generates truly random numbers. If you're saying that there's absolutely no way that any computer could ever generate truly random numbers, then you're saying that its inability to do so has nothing to do with whether the programmer is omniscient or not. So arguing that the programmer's omniscience would somehow cause the computer to not be able to generate truly random numbers is incorrect. It couldn't do it even if the programmer wasn't omniscient, per what you're saying.
| It's the same thing with your demand that we assume that you have free will. You don't, period. |
I'm only saying to assume it for the sake of argument, so that we can determine if God's omniscience is incompatible with it. If you're saying we can't possibly have free will at all, then it has nothing to do with whether God is omniscient or not, or even whether He exists at all, right? If I understand correctly, you aren't saying that free will can't exist if God is omniscient, but that free will can't exist period.
| I'm done assuming that things which don't exist do, just to argue with you, KingDavid8. The intellectual exercise isn't interesting enough. |
Fair enough. I'm fine with us agreeing to disagree. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2011 : 20:47:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by Dave W.
Look, you have already agreed that a "truly random" number generator is something we don't know how to make. You asserted, "there's no reason that an omnipotent computer programmer would be unable to do so," but in fact there are solid, real-world reasons for thinking so. The fact that computers are completely deterministic, for one. |
An omnipotent computer programmer would almost certainly be able to make one that isn't completely deterministic. |
BUZZZZZZZZ!!! Tacky buzzer. Go to your room and eat a booger.
Completely wrong there. A computer programmer, no matter how omnipotent, is still making an extremely complex deterministic model.
Computers are machines. They are incapable of making judgement calls for situations for which they have no previous coding to handle.
While the little bastards seem to have a mean streak and do things on purpose, it is due to sloppy programming and synergy between connected modules.
Random number generators are not random. They strip the last couple of digits from the time (in fractions of a second) so that it appears to be random. In actuality, it is not.
| So in essence, by demanding that we assume that some programmer is able to create something that doesn't now exist and for which we have good empirical reasons to think cannot exist, you're demanding that we assume that magic can happen. |
The fact that we think it can't exist doesn't mean it absolutely can't. Hypothetically, one may exist someday. So, hypothetically, an omnipotent computer programmer could know how to make one. |
Hypothetically, the world is full of fluffy bunnies and timid woodland creatures.
Once logic and empirical evidence is applied, the woodland creatures are stalked by predators and the fluffy bunnies are ripped to bloody shreds by wolves.
And even if it can't possibly happen without "magic", so what? Fine, let's say that there's an omnipotent, magical computer programmer who makes a computer that can generate truly random numbers. All we're questioning is whether the computer programmer can be omniscient if his computer generates random numbers. How the computer manages to generate them, through technology or magic, is irrelevant to the discussion. If you don't like assuming it's magic, then let's assume it's a type of technology we can't comprehend quite yet. I don't care how the randomness happens, the question is what happens if the computer generates truly random numbers. If you're saying that there's absolutely no way that any computer could ever generate truly random numbers, then you're saying that its inability to do so has nothing to do with whether the programmer is omniscient or not. So arguing that the programmer's omniscience would somehow cause the computer to not be able to generate truly random numbers is incorrect. It couldn't do it even if the programmer wasn't omniscient, per what you're saying.
| It's the same thing with your demand that we assume that you have free will. You don't, period. |
I'm only saying to assume it for the sake of argument, so that we can determine if God's omniscience is incompatible with it. If you're saying we can't possibly have free will at all, then it has nothing to do with whether God is omniscient or not, or even whether He exists at all, right? If I understand correctly, you aren't saying that free will can't exist if God is omniscient, but that free will can't exist period.
| I'm done assuming that things which don't exist do, just to argue with you, KingDavid8. The intellectual exercise isn't interesting enough. |
Fair enough. I'm fine with us agreeing to disagree.
|
This isn't agreeing to disagree. This is refusing to accept a premise without basis and shown to be self-contradictory. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2011 : 22:41:17 [Permalink]
|
No, I am not twisting your words, you said: "not all of my beliefs about God come from the Bible." What evidence do you have that your god is omniscient and gives freewill then?
| Dave W. brought up the issue of free will back on page 7. I just responded to it. If you don't like the thread being "hijacked", feel free to take it up with him. |
Yeah, but he was still discussing mythology but since you do not believe it is a myth, you wouldn't understand that.
| Yes, it's been about this for about 15-20 pages now. |
And 15-20 pages now, everyone besides you are still discussing myths because you are the only one that thinks it is true.
| Yes, I was pointing out that Jesus not having a choice in believing that He was who He was doesn't mean He didn't have free will at all in any matters. |
And that is your belief, you have no evidence to back it up.
| I didn't change any rules. The issue came up and I responded to it. |
Yeah, so did I, with the evidence that shows that your god did not give freewill but had no problem taking it at random to suit his own purpose.
| Yes, just about anyone can call themselves an "apologist", just as just about anyone can call themselves an "egyptologist" or a "scholar". It's not about who applies what titles to themselves, but about what the evidence shows in regards to the claims. I know that we're just waiting for you and Teched's evidence to get formatted and posted, and I'll respond to it then. |
David,to be an Egyptologist, you have had to actually study Egyptology. This is why we use the work of scholars who have studied Egyptology to determine what the actual Pyramid texts and other texts actually say. You dismiss those scholars with a wave of your hand, just as Mr. Gasque did when he lied by saying that Harpur didn't quote Egyptologists when he did. This is the type of 'research' that I have seen you do over and over which isn't really research, it is just finding people who believe the same thing as you do to prop up your religious beliefs.
| Yes, the article was about a largely different set of claims that Christ-mythers repeat, and which were largely dismissed by the Egyptologists. |
What Christ-mythers are you referring to that supposedly repeat these claims? Besides Harpur, I havent heard anyone repeat them the majority of them, I had never heard of the majority of them.
Is your degree higher than Harpur's? After all, he was a professor of Religion at a college. Not only that, Harpur is still a Christian.
http://www.tomharpur.com/books/books_findingthestillpoint.asp
WOW what desperate measures you will take to prop up your faith, did you even bother to read the whole sentence?
| He's telling us what Harper et al. are claiming, not that he's agreeing with it. |
No, he never said that is a quote from Harpur nor does he quote it to signify it was from Harpur. That is another one of your lies.
| The Bible contains many different types of writing, including allegory, law, history, prophecy, letters and poetry. So it depends which books of the Bible you're talking about. |
All of them.
True, but the fact that they can't back their claims up with evidence makes them very hard for a rational person to believe.
|
What makes you think that they did not read it from the actual texts? Do you really think that all the scholars are out to get the Christians? And aren't you already moving the goal posts since you said that you would take their evidence?
What I find so hilarious is that you believe that your god is real, omnipotent and gives freewill without any evidence which makes all of us rational people not believe it.
| Yes, I was asking you to provide the evidence, not to just shoot me a link to someone's else's videos where they just repeat the claims. If the evidence is in the videos, then you wouldn't have had such a problem providing it. |
I didn't shoot you to the links of other people's videos david, and you know it, that is what, lie number 3 or 4 now? I am glad everyone is catching on to you and your tactics. Notice how these people said the same exact thing as I have been telling you for 6+ months? Do you think that we are all out to get you?
Yeah, I have, I can see the errors that they have made because they do not quite understand Egyptology. Isn't the 19 year old kid that runs conspiracy science a Christian?
But what is funny is that I can find just as many Christian websites that claim that Jesus was made into a sun god by Catholics and/or Satan.
http://www.piney.com/WinRSSunSanta.html
http://www.abbaswatchman.com/PAGE%2025%20CATHOLIC%20POPE%20IS%20SATAN.htm
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/monstr.htm
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/fahim-knight/2007/12/Christmas-Jesus-Sun-God-Lies-Deceptions-and-Truth
http://www.thenazareneway.com/yeshua_jesus_real_name.htm
http://www.thenazareneway.com/Origins%20of%20Christmas%20Traditions.htm
Oh yeah, I remember what you said about these people, you said that they were nuts.
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
| Edited by - changingmyself on 06/17/2011 22:46:11 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 08:11:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
An omnipotent computer programmer would almost certainly be able to make one that isn't completely deterministic. |
If an omnipotent programmer can do anything, including changing how the hardware works (something no programmer can do now, but a requirement for a non-deterministic program), then you may as well say that he can make a watermelon that's a banana, or even mutually contradictory things, and then logic flies out the window and we can conclude nothing. In other words, if one of your premises is that the other premises in your argument create neither limitations nor consequences, then the argument is moot from the start.| The fact that we think it can't exist doesn't mean it absolutely can't. |
No, we have good evidence that such a thing will never exist. Solid evidence that you're simply ignoring in favor of saying, "well maybe it'll happen." That's not a good argument, that's just special pleading.| Hypothetically, one may exist someday. So, hypothetically, an omnipotent computer programmer could know how to make one. |
No, your hypothetical is invalidated by reality.| And even if it can't possibly happen without "magic", so what? Fine, let's say that there's an omnipotent, magical computer programmer who makes a computer that can generate truly random numbers. |
Then he could also probably make one equal two and all bets are off on drawing any conclusions. We're talking logic, here, and magic simply invalidates that process. With magic, anything is possible, and so we can conclude nothing.| If you're saying that there's absolutely no way that any computer could ever generate truly random numbers, then you're saying that its inability to do so has nothing to do with whether the programmer is omniscient or not. So arguing that the programmer's omniscience would somehow cause the computer to not be able to generate truly random numbers is incorrect. It couldn't do it even if the programmer wasn't omniscient, per what you're saying. |
That's why I said that omniscience denying randomness is the logical icing on the empirical cake. We have good empirical reasons to think that one of the premises of your hypothetical is false. We can also logically conclude that omniscience would deny randomness. Two independent means of showing that your analogy is faulty, which is what you asked to have pointed out to you. To try to save your analogy by appealing to magic is disingenuous, at best. To claim that your position hasn't been shown to be wrong because you appealed to magic would be downright dishonest (see our free will discussion, previously).| I'm only saying to assume it for the sake of argument, so that we can determine if God's omniscience is incompatible with it. |
And that's been shown already, through a logical examination of the meaning of the words.| If I understand correctly, you aren't saying that free will can't exist if God is omniscient, but that free will can't exist period. |
No, listen carefully: I'm saying that if god is omniscient, then that precludes anyone from having free will, and I'm saying that that discussion is silly anyway, because in reality, nobody has free will in the first place (also, god doesn't exist). As soon as you demonstrated yourself impervious to sound argument, and brought nothing new to the discussion, I lost interest in granting you your magical assumptions.| Fair enough. I'm fine with us agreeing to disagree. |
If you think that's what is happening here, then you are deluding yourself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sugarino
New Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 10:33:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hercules
I would think many here would be interested in the mythicist position. Please give the links & videos a good going over before having any knee-jerk reactions. |
I'm interested in ancient myth,what they believed,what they knew,why people would worship/adore the sun is valid to me .. But from my understanding, the "mythicist position" is that correlation = influence = causation, and I'm to skeptic to just assume that much. Influence maybe,but causation ? That's what I have a problem just accepting.
I'm supposed to accept that Jesus is a sun God because people before him worshiped the sun ?
|
| Edited by - sugarino on 06/18/2011 10:35:04 |
|
|
|
sugarino
New Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 18:46:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
David,to be an Egyptologist, you have had to actually study Egyptology. This is why we use the work of scholars who have studied Egyptology to determine what the actual Pyramid texts and other texts actually say. You dismiss those scholars with a wave of your hand, just as Mr. Gasque did when he lied by saying that Harpur didn't quote Egyptologists when he did. This is the type of 'research' that I have seen you do over and over which isn't really research, it is just finding people who believe the same thing as you do to prop up your religious beliefs. |
How about Gerald Massey, do you consider him an Egyptologist ? How about yourself, it is quite apparent that you have studied Egyptology, are you an Egyptologist ?
By the way, I am very much looking forward to your debate with King David8 and I have seen you around some, noticed that you are quite intelligent in your posts in dealing with this topic.
I also like King David 8 as I don't believe that he is as educated in Egyptology as you are, I also find him to be very intelligent. I'm here because I'm to lazy to read everything for myself.. lol But from the little bit that I know, I think Gerald Massey is questionable.
|
| Edited by - sugarino on 06/18/2011 18:57:16 |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 20:15:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
No, I am not twisting your words, you said: "not all of my beliefs about God come from the Bible." |
Yes, which is a whole lot different than how you twisted it in response.
| Yes, it's been about this for about 15-20 pages now. |
And 15-20 pages now, everyone besides you are still discussing myths because you are the only one that thinks it is true. |
No, we've been discussing whether God's hypothetical omniscience is incompatible with our hypothetical free will.
| Yes, just about anyone can call themselves an "apologist", just as just about anyone can call themselves an "egyptologist" or a "scholar". It's not about who applies what titles to themselves, but about what the evidence shows in regards to the claims. I know that we're just waiting for you and Teched's evidence to get formatted and posted, and I'll respond to it then. |
David,to be an Egyptologist, you have had to actually study Egyptology. This is why we use the work of scholars who have studied Egyptology to determine what the actual Pyramid texts and other texts actually say. |
And then we have other "Egyptologists" who just go around repeating the Horus claims, without ever having read any pre-Christian text that back up most of the claims. Yes, there are good egyptologists and bad egyptologists. The good ones go where the ancient evidence actually points.
| You dismiss those scholars with a wave of your hand, |
If they can't back up their claims with some kind of evidence, then they're well worth dismissing.
| What Christ-mythers are you referring to that supposedly repeat these claims? |
Are you kidding? They're all over the internet. Google "Jesus Horus" and you'll find hundreds of them.
WOW what desperate measures you will take to prop up your faith, did you even bother to read the whole sentence? |
Yep, you wrote "And yet, he mentions that not one of the Egyptologists disagrees with the virgin birth but only about the "12 followers" and then the other claims by Harpur." Did you misspeak?
| He's telling us what Harper et al. are claiming, not that he's agreeing with it. |
No, he never said that is a quote from Harpur nor does he quote it to signify it was from Harpur. That is another one of your lies. |
Read the paragraphs before and after. I think it's pretty clear that he's just relaying what Harpur is claiming.
| The Bible contains many different types of writing, including allegory, law, history, prophecy, letters and poetry. So it depends which books of the Bible you're talking about. |
All of them. |
If I have to give a single answer that covers all, then the answer is "no".
True, but the fact that they can't back their claims up with evidence makes them very hard for a rational person to believe.
|
What makes you think that they did not read it from the actual texts? |
Because if they did, Christ-mythers wouldn't have such trouble finding the actual texts that back up most of these claims.
| Do you really think that all the scholars are out to get the Christians? |
Of course not. It's just a fringe minority who spread this Christ-myth nonsense.
| And aren't you already moving the goal posts since you said that you would take their evidence? |
If they're on staff at a university or publish in peer-reviewed journals, yes. If they're just self-described "scholars" who are just repeating what other self-described "scholars" are saying without backing it up with evidence, no.
| What I find so hilarious is that you believe that your god is real, omnipotent and gives freewill without any evidence |
Who says I don't have any evidence?
| Yes, I was asking you to provide the evidence, not to just shoot me a link to someone's else's videos where they just repeat the claims. If the evidence is in the videos, then you wouldn't have had such a problem providing it. |
I didn't shoot you to the links of other people's videos david, and you know it, that is what, lie number 3 or 4 now? |
Are you seriously saying that you didn't shoot me links to "GodAlmighty"s videos? Or are you claiming to the creator of his videos?
I have yet to see any website take a skeptical look at these claims and find them valid. Have you?
|
Yeah, I have, |
Care to provide some links?
| I can see the errors that they have made because they do not quite understand Egyptology. Isn't the 19 year old kid that runs conspiracy science a Christian? |
It's run by a group of skeptics. As far as I know, none of them are Christians or 19-year-old kids. Here's their page about the people who run it: http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/site/about/
Per that page, "Conspiracy Science is an online community run by a consortium of skeptics and people who tend to ask too many questions."
| But what is funny is that I can find just as many Christian websites that claim that Jesus was made into a sun god by Catholics and/or Satan. |
Great, but I'm talking about Zeitgeist's claims. |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 20:17:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sugarino
Originally posted by changingmyself
David,to be an Egyptologist, you have had to actually study Egyptology. This is why we use the work of scholars who have studied Egyptology to determine what the actual Pyramid texts and other texts actually say. You dismiss those scholars with a wave of your hand, just as Mr. Gasque did when he lied by saying that Harpur didn't quote Egyptologists when he did. This is the type of 'research' that I have seen you do over and over which isn't really research, it is just finding people who believe the same thing as you do to prop up your religious beliefs. |
How about Gerald Massey, do you consider him an Egyptologist ? How about yourself, it is quite apparent that you have studied Egyptology, are you an Egyptologist ?
[quote]By the way, I am very much looking forward to your debate with King David8 and I have seen you around some, noticed that you are quite intelligent in your posts in dealing with this topic.
I also like King David 8 as I don't believe that he is as educated in Egyptology as you are, I also find him to be very intelligent. I'm here because I'm to lazy to read everything for myself.. lol But from the little bit that I know, I think Gerald Massey is questionable. |
No, I do not consider myself or Massey Egyptologists although Masseys books are impressive for his day. I only use scholars for the debate and Massey wasn't a "scholar". An interesting bit of information about Massey was that he was a Christian and continued to be a Christian even after he found out the Egyptian information. I would in no way discount what Massey had to say, but I would definitely look for new and more up to date information. |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
sugarino
New Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 20:42:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
No, I do not consider myself or Massey Egyptologists although Masseys books are impressive for his day. I only use scholars for the debate and Massey wasn't a "scholar". An interesting bit of information about Massey was that he was a Christian and continued to be a Christian even after he found out the Egyptian information. I would in no way discount what Massey had to say, but I would definitely look for new and more up to date information.
|
That is interesting.. Define Christian though? Im curious how Massey remained a 'Believer' in Jesus If he thought that Jesus was a myth.
No Birth,death,resurrection,kingdom of God ? What's the point ? |
| Edited by - sugarino on 06/18/2011 20:43:08 |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 20:52:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
If an omnipotent programmer can do anything, including changing how the hardware works (something no programmer can do now, but a requirement for a non-deterministic program), then you may as well say that he can make a watermelon that's a banana, or even mutually contradictory things, and then logic flies out the window and we can conclude nothing. |
I'm not talking about creating things that are mutually contradictory, but just about creating truly random numbers. There's a good chance we'll be able to do it someday. If we had an omnipotent computer programmer, there's a good chance he'd be able to do it now.
| The fact that we think it can't exist doesn't mean it absolutely can't. |
No, we have good evidence that such a thing will never exist. Solid evidence that you're simply ignoring in favor of saying, "well maybe it'll happen." That's not a good argument, that's just special pleading. |
There is no solid evidence that such a thing will never exist, only that it won't exist in the near future. Looking at the computers that were being made fifty years ago, I'm sure their creators wouldn't have believed what they can do today.
If your response is that a computer that creates truly random numbers cannot possibly exist, then your argument isn't that such a computer would cause a paradox with the programmer being omniscient. If it cannot possibly exist no matter what, then the programmer's omniscience isn't a factor in the matter.
| And even if it can't possibly happen without "magic", so what? Fine, let's say that there's an omnipotent, magical computer programmer who makes a computer that can generate truly random numbers. |
Then he could also probably make one equal two and all bets are off on drawing any conclusions. |
You're getting hung up on a detail (how the computer got created) that isn't important to the issue. I'm saying that a hypothetical omniscient, omnipotent computer programmer would be able to predict a series of truly random numbers that his computer will put out. HOW the computer got created in the first place isn't the issue.
| If you're saying that there's absolutely no way that any computer could ever generate truly random numbers, then you're saying that its inability to do so has nothing to do with whether the programmer is omniscient or not. So arguing that the programmer's omniscience would somehow cause the computer to not be able to generate truly random numbers is incorrect. It couldn't do it even if the programmer wasn't omniscient, per what you're saying. |
That's why I said that omniscience denying randomness is the logical icing on the empirical cake. |
But you aren't arguing that omniscience denies the randomness. You're arguing that the randomness can't exist in the first place.
| We have good empirical reasons to think that one of the premises of your hypothetical is false. We can also logically conclude that omniscience would deny randomness. |
Until we get past the issue of how the computer was created (which isn't important), we'll never know.
| To try to save your analogy by appealing to magic is disingenuous, at best. To claim that your position hasn't been shown to be wrong because you appealed to magic would be downright dishonest |
My premise is that IF a computer could generate truly random numbers, its creator could still be omniscient. It doesn't matter if the computer does so through magic, technology or whatever.
| If I understand correctly, you aren't saying that free will can't exist if God is omniscient, but that free will can't exist period. |
No, listen carefully: I'm saying that if god is omniscient, then that precludes anyone from having free will, and I'm saying that that discussion is silly anyway, because in reality, nobody has free will in the first place |
So our lack of free will has nothing to do with God's hypothetical omniscience, correct? If God (hypothetically) IS omniscient, then we don't have free will. If God (hypothetically) ISN'T omniscient, or doesn't exist, then we don't have free will.
To my question "assuming we have free will, could God be omniscient?", your response seems to be "I won't assume we have free will".
To my question "assuming we have a computer that can generate truly random numbers, could its creator be omniscient?", your response seems to be "I won't assume such a computer exists".
If those are your answers, that's fine. But then we haven't really gotten anywhere in determining whether free will (or truly random numbers) can't jibe with omniscience. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Mythicist position
