|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
 Posted - 06/18/2011 : 21:13:34 [Permalink]
|
| Yes, which is a whole lot different than how you twisted it in response. |
It wasn't a response, it was a question.
| No, we've been discussing whether God's hypothetical omniscience is incompatible with our hypothetical free will. |
But you are the obviously the only one that thinks this god is real.
Remember, this is a skeptic website.
| 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. |
So you think that the Egyptologists aren't studying Egyptology, they are just going around repeating claims, you have got to be joking.
Basically, you think that the good Egyptologists agree with you, and the bad ones agree with me.
| If they can't back up their claims with some kind of evidence, then they're well worth dismissing. |
But yet, they have and did and you still wave them away as if you know better, because you are what? Oh yeah, you think that they are just going around repeating claims.
| Are you kidding? They're all over the internet. Google "Jesus Horus" and you'll find hundreds of them. |
Care to provide links that repeat what Tom Harpur has said?
| 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? |
Do you not see the words "but only", maybe you aren't reading it correctly?
| Read the paragraphs before and after. I think it's pretty clear that he's just relaying what Harpur is claiming. |
If he had quoted Harpur, he would have quoted Harpur, but he didn't and it is obvious. You can play your fantasy game of 'I don't see it' but facts are facts and he did not quote Harpur.
| If I have to give a single answer that covers all, then the answer is "no". |
And let me guess, only you know which ones are real and which aren't?
| Because if they did, Christ-mythers wouldn't have such trouble finding the actual texts that back up most of these claims. |
What makes you think that anyone is having problems finding the actual texts that back up these claims? David there are thousands of books out there that cover these claims, just because you refuse to read them, doesn't mean that there is no actual texts that back them up.
| Of course not. It's just a fringe minority who spread this Christ-myth nonsense. |
What proof do you have that is a fringe minority? Have you polled all of the Egyptologists? Or is this another one of your fantasy games that you know what all the Egyptologists say and think?
| 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. |
Well good then, because that is exactly what I have to show you. Remember, you cannot just close your eyes and wish it away this time, many people are watching this.
| Who says I don't have any evidence? |
I have asked you for it many times now, you haven't provided it, so therefore since you haven't given it, I presumed that you don't have it. But please do, show your evidence for all to see.
| 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? |
5+ months I gave you evidence of these claims. The sixth month, I gave you a link to prove to you that maiden is a synonym for virgin and you act as if that is the only thing I did was provide a link to other videos. David, you are a ridiculous liar.
| Care to provide some links? |
http://freetruth.50webs.org/Index.htm
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
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."
|
A group of 5 skeptics. One of which is 20 something and none of them have credentials listed. Again, I would rather stick with what the scholars say because I can see they have no clue about Egyptology from reading the first page. You are the one that has to prove that they are "fringe" scholars.
Great, but I'm talking about Zeitgeist's claims.
|
Yeah, so were they, but as usual, you covered your eyes. |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
 |
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 21:16:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sugarino
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 ?
|
I don't think that he thought Jesus was a myth, I think that he thought Jesus was Horus. What do you mean no birth, death, resurrection, kingdom of god, whats the point of what? Horus was born, died, was resurrected and was considered a god, so what is your point? |
"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 : 21:41:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by sugarino
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 ?
|
I don't think that he thought Jesus was a myth, I think that he thought Jesus was Horus. What do you mean no birth, death, resurrection, kingdom of god, whats the point of what? Horus was born, died, was resurrected and was considered a god, so what is your point?
|
My question "what's the point" was on the assumption that he did think that Jesus was a myth. I had no idea that he believed that Horus did all that and that they were the same person.
What about the "Kingdom of God?" That is a big part of Christianity,Did Horus say anything about that? |
| Edited by - sugarino on 06/18/2011 21:42:45 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2011 : 22:28:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
I'm not talking about creating things that are mutually contradictory, but just about creating truly random numbers. |
You're not listening.| There's a good chance we'll be able to do it someday. |
Where is your objective, empirical data from which you have drawn that conclusion? You're not even addressing the biggest objection to your statement that I've already given you, you're just ignoring it and saying, "maybe someday things will be different." But if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.| If we had an omnipotent computer programmer, there's a good chance he'd be able to do it now. |
Again, an appeal to magic.| There is no solid evidence that such a thing will never exist, only that it won't exist in the near future. |
Where is your empirical evidence that a "truly random number generator" might be implementable in software, ever?| 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. |
Past advances in technology do not predict future performance in any particular field. The invention of the "Talkie" in no way suggested that 3-D movies were possible, for example.
But you're talking about something much more fundamental. The way computers work hasn't changed one iota from when then were built by hand with vacuum tubes. They've gotten massively more complex and speedier, but still, at their hearts, they just execute one simple instruction at a time in a purely pre-determined fashion. You're asking me to believe that someday, somehow, maybe someone will invent a way for a completely deterministic set of instructions to result in a not-pre-determined output. Can you even suggest a hint at a real-life method through which this might be achieved?| 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. |
You really need to listen to what I'm saying to you, instead of guessing at what I'm saying.| 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. |
I never said a word about how the computer got created.
As soon as your hypothetical was slaughtered via logic, you simply demanded "let's assume he can create a truly random number generator, anyway" (words to that effect). My response is, "No, I'm not going to assume that magical computer programmers exist just for the sake of argument any longer."| But you aren't arguing that omniscience denies the randomness. |
I already did. Your response was to demand that we assume randomness. That didn't address the argument I made at all, it just went off on a tangent.| You're arguing that the randomness can't exist in the first place. |
Because you apparently don't like the logic-only argument so much that you simply ignored it and plead for the premises, I am forced to resort to reality.| Until we get past the issue of how the computer was created (which isn't important), we'll never know. |
I never brought up anything even slightly related to the creation of any computer, so I have absolutely no clue as to why you're saying such things.| My premise is that IF a computer could generate truly random numbers, its creator could still be omniscient. |
And that's a contradiction given the meaning of the words "omniscient" and "random." The creator of such software would have complete control over the numbers being output by the generator, simply by knowing what changes to his software would bring about which changes to the output stream of numbers. There's nothing "random" about a pre-determined sequence of numbers.| It doesn't matter if the computer does so through magic, technology or whatever. |
Once again, you're confusing the logical argument and reality.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. |
We already showed how free will and random numbers are denied by omniscience. You didn't like the answers (but had no valid arguments against them), so you've fallen to simply demanding that we accept a premise as true that reality says is false.
In other words, once you left logic behind, I brought reality into the discussion as a trump card. Had you had anything interesting or new to say regarding the logical arguments, I would have been fine assuming that either free will or a truly random number generator exists for the sake of argument. But since you won't actually argue, I get to say, "who cares, reality demonstrates that these discussions are silly, anyway." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2011 : 07:08:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sugarino
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by sugarino
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 ?
|
I don't think that he thought Jesus was a myth, I think that he thought Jesus was Horus. What do you mean no birth, death, resurrection, kingdom of god, whats the point of what? Horus was born, died, was resurrected and was considered a god, so what is your point?
|
My question "what's the point" was on the assumption that he did think that Jesus was a myth. I had no idea that he believed that Horus did all that and that they were the same person.
What about the "Kingdom of God?" That is a big part of Christianity,Did Horus say anything about that?
|
From my 'very basic' understanding of Egyptology,they thought the 'kingdom of god' was the Netherworld. This is why Osiris was called God of the Netherworld, God of the Dead, Judge of the Dead. He was there to people through the Gates of the Netherworld aka the Gates of Heaven. Everyone that died was called Osiris. One thing that I have noticed by looking at all the Egyptian hieroglyphs is that Osiris is always in mummy form, his feet were bound together.
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2011 : 07:55:09 [Permalink]
|
| What about the "Kingdom of God?" That is a big part of Christianity,Did Horus say anything about that? |
You're kidding me 
Pyramid Texts Chapter 45. THE DECEASED KING, OSIRIS, ON EARTH AND IN HEAVEN UTTERANCE 610.
Chapter 43. THE RESURRECTION, ASCENSION, AND RECEPTION OF THE DECEASED KING IN HEAVEN, UTTERANCE 606.
Chapter 53. RESURRECTION, TRANSFIGURATION, AND LIFE OF THE KING IN HEAVEN, UTTERANCE 676
Chapter 55. THE DECEASED KING ASCENDS TO HEAVEN, UTTERANCE 684.
Chapter 34. NEW-BIRTH OF THE DECEASED KING AS A GOD IN HEAVEN,
(glory to the new born king!!)
Utterance 570
1455b. "Let Osiris ascend.... so that heaven may not be void of Osiris, so that earth may not be void of Osiris, forever."
... and so on. The egyptian "kingdom of god" is apparent. Horus himself is referred to as the "King of Kings" in the following line:
Utterance 570
1458e. "by command of Horus, hereditary prince and King of the Gods."
|
"For all things have been baptized in the well of eternity and are beyond good
and evil; and good and evil themselves are but intervening shadows and damp
depressions and drifting clouds.Verily, it is a blessing and not a blasphemy
when I teach: ‘Over all things stand the heaven Accident, the heaven
Innocence, the heaven Chance, the heaven Prankishness." -Nietzsche |
| Edited by - teched246 on 06/19/2011 08:16:44 |
|
|
|
sugarino
New Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2011 : 10:12:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
| What about the "Kingdom of God?" That is a big part of Christianity,Did Horus say anything about that? |
You're kidding me |
No, I wasn't really kidding.I haven't read all this stuff you referenced. I take that back, I haven't read any of it. I read the Bible long ago because it was there, I was curious. This might be a surprise to you but more people than not, haven't read the Pyramid Texts.
Pyramid Texts Chapter 45. THE DECEASED KING, OSIRIS, ON EARTH AND IN HEAVEN UTTERANCE 610.
Chapter 43. THE RESURRECTION, ASCENSION, AND RECEPTION OF THE DECEASED KING IN HEAVEN, UTTERANCE 606.
Chapter 53. RESURRECTION, TRANSFIGURATION, AND LIFE OF THE KING IN HEAVEN, UTTERANCE 676
Chapter 55. THE DECEASED KING ASCENDS TO HEAVEN, UTTERANCE 684.
Chapter 34. NEW-BIRTH OF THE DECEASED KING AS A GOD IN HEAVEN,
(glory to the new born king!!)
Utterance 570
1455b. "Let Osiris ascend.... so that heaven may not be void of Osiris, so that earth may not be void of Osiris, forever."
... and so on. The egyptian "kingdom of god" is apparent. Horus himself is referred to as the "King of Kings" in the following line:
Utterance 570
1458e. "by command of Horus, hereditary prince and King of the Gods." |
OK.. So did Horus offer a redemption plan that existed from "within," a "paradise," if you will ? |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2011 : 17:43:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sugarino
Originally posted by teched246
| What about the "Kingdom of God?" That is a big part of Christianity,Did Horus say anything about that? |
You're kidding me |
No, I wasn't really kidding.I haven't read all this stuff you referenced. I take that back, I haven't read any of it. I read the Bible long ago because it was there, I was curious. This might be a surprise to you but more people than not, haven't read the Pyramid Texts.
Pyramid Texts Chapter 45. THE DECEASED KING, OSIRIS, ON EARTH AND IN HEAVEN UTTERANCE 610.
Chapter 43. THE RESURRECTION, ASCENSION, AND RECEPTION OF THE DECEASED KING IN HEAVEN, UTTERANCE 606.
Chapter 53. RESURRECTION, TRANSFIGURATION, AND LIFE OF THE KING IN HEAVEN, UTTERANCE 676
Chapter 55. THE DECEASED KING ASCENDS TO HEAVEN, UTTERANCE 684.
Chapter 34. NEW-BIRTH OF THE DECEASED KING AS A GOD IN HEAVEN,
(glory to the new born king!!)
Utterance 570
1455b. "Let Osiris ascend.... so that heaven may not be void of Osiris, so that earth may not be void of Osiris, forever."
... and so on. The egyptian "kingdom of god" is apparent. Horus himself is referred to as the "King of Kings" in the following line:
Utterance 570
1458e. "by command of Horus, hereditary prince and King of the Gods." |
OK.. So did Horus offer a redemption plan that existed from "within," a "paradise," if you will ?
|
Yes, he did.
Death and salvation in ancient Egypt - Page 38
Jan Assmann
"Horus, the son, was responsible for this aspect of redemption from death."
On Page 58
"I am one of you, Salvation from Death through inclusion."
page 115
"What was important was for Osiris to go to the Netherworld and remain there. Only thus in the realm of death, could he become the center of a sphere of eternal life that held out the promise of salvation from the realm of death and the promise of eternal life for every deceased person who followed him. Salvation and Eternal life are Christian concepts, and we might think that the Egyptian myth can all too easily be viewed through the lens of Christian tradition. Quite the contrary, in my opinion, Christian myth is itself thoroughly stamped by Egyptian Tradition, by the myth of Isis and Osiris, which from the very beginning had to do with salvation and eternal life."
"Jan Assmann was professor of Egyptology at the University of Heidelberg from 1976 to 2003, and is now at the University of Konstanz. In addition, he worked as a guest professor in Paris (Collège de France, École Pratique des Hautes Études, EHESS), Jerusalem (Hebrew University, Dormition Abbey) and the US (Yale University, University of Houston, University of Chicago)."
Maybe kingdavid thinks he is one of those fringe Egyptologists that just goes around repeating claims from Zeitgeist though, so just use your own judgement on how valid he is compared to the validity of kingdavid.
Another interesting book on this subject is: "Romanising oriental Gods: myth, salvation, and ethics in the cults" by
Jaime Alvar, a historian of Granada, an expert on ancient history professor at the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid...studied Geography and History at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid and subsequently expanded studies at the University of Cologne ( 1980 - 1981 ). He was professor at the Complutense University from 1977 to 1996, he obtained the chair in the Huelva . He was visiting professor at the University of Cambridge in 1999-2000. Since 2000 Professor at the Carlos III de Madrid. He has been Visiting Professor at the University of Tor Vergata (Rome), Franche-Comté (France) and Potsdam (Germany).
I guess kingdavid couldn't call him a "fringe Egyptologist" but maybe a fringe historian. I am sure that Jaime got all of his information from Zeitgeist and just goes around repeating the claims at all the colleges or maybe...he studied the religions of that era and knows what he is talking about???
Page 417
"The desire to keep early-Christian and mystery sacramentalism apart is pure ideology. In my view, the differences between the Christianities and the oriental cults are no greater than those between each of the latter themselves. However, the new apologetics has invented another idea to preserve the orginality of Christianity here, which we may call 'reverse borrowing'. It is best described as a modern varient of Justin (Martyr's) idea of diabolic imitation."
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
| Edited by - changingmyself on 06/19/2011 19:04:07 |
|
|
|
sugarino
New Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2011 : 20:40:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
Maybe kingdavid thinks he is one of those fringe Egyptologists that just goes around repeating claims from Zeitgeist though, so just use your own judgment on how valid he is compared to the validity of kingdavid. |
I always use my own judgment,changingmyself. King David is right about one thing that I know for sure, people do indeed post without doing their own research,which is pathetic,tapping into a line item so important without knowing if it is correct information. I see this a great deal in science forums. So I will accept your information as valid unless I find out otherwise, because I am never going to research all this that you have, for myself.
Too kingDavid 8, you would be wise to never argue the omniscience/freewill debate again, you would have to be God himself to explain that paradox. You should know that has puzzled theologians for a very long time, age old argument.
Another interesting book on this subject is: "Romanising oriental Gods: myth, salvation, and ethics in the cults" by
Jaime Alvar,[...] |
I do appreciate your answer to my question but you need not post the references to me. If I have a question and you know the answer, that is good enough for me until I would learn otherwise. Thank you |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2011 : 18:35:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
| No, we've been discussing whether God's hypothetical omniscience is incompatible with our hypothetical free will. |
But you are the obviously the only one that thinks this god is real.
Remember, this is a skeptic website. |
Yep, and we weren't debating whether God was real or not.
| 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. |
So you think that the Egyptologists aren't studying Egyptology, they are just going around repeating claims, |
If they're repeating claims that have no evidence to back them up, then they may be "egyptologists", but they sure aren't good ones.
| Basically, you think that the good Egyptologists agree with you, and the bad ones agree with me. |
No, I think that the good Egyptologists go where the evidence actually points. The bad ones don't.
| If they can't back up their claims with some kind of evidence, then they're well worth dismissing. |
But yet, they have and did and you still wave them away as if you know better, |
For most of the claims? No, they have not. If they had, mythicists wouldn't have so much trouble finding this evidence.
| Are you kidding? They're all over the internet. Google "Jesus Horus" and you'll find hundreds of them. |
Care to provide links that repeat what Tom Harpur has said? |
http://webspace.webring.com/people/ci/inquisitive79/godmen.html
http://www.interferencetheory.com/Blog/files/b32c1b2958b586c586edcae1b01c42db-109.html
http://www.christplagiarized.com/Christ_Plagiarized/Christ_Plagiarized.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1344643/posts
| 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? |
Do you not see the words "but only", maybe you aren't reading it correctly? |
I am reading it correctly. You're saying that none of them disagreed with the virgin birth, but only with other claims. I'm asking where you're getting the idea that none of them disagreed with the virgin birth.
| Read the paragraphs before and after. I think it's pretty clear that he's just relaying what Harpur is claiming. |
If he had quoted Harpur, he would have quoted Harpur, but he didn't and it is obvious. You can play your fantasy game of 'I don't see it' but facts are facts and he did not quote Harpur. |
I didn't say he "quoted" Harpur. I said he's relaying what Harpur is saying. If you read the paragraphs before and after, it's quite clear that this is what he's doing.
| If I have to give a single answer that covers all, then the answer is "no". |
And let me guess, only you know which ones are real and which aren't? |
Bad guess.
| Because if they did, Christ-mythers wouldn't have such trouble finding the actual texts that back up most of these claims. |
What makes you think that anyone is having problems finding the actual texts that back up these claims? |
When your evidence is posted, we'll just see how many of the Zeitgeist claims you back up with the actual text, okay?
| Of course not. It's just a fringe minority who spread this Christ-myth nonsense. |
What proof do you have that is a fringe minority? Have you polled all of the Egyptologists? |
If you seriously believe that mainstream Egyptologists believes this nonsense, I'll leave you to your delusion. In Gasque's article, one of the top egyptologists dismisses the claims as "fringe nonsense". What does that tell you?
| 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. |
Well good then, because that is exactly what I have to show you. |
Then I can't wait to see it.
| Who says I don't have any evidence? |
I have asked you for it many times now, you haven't provided it, so therefore since you haven't given it, I presumed that you don't have it. But please do, show your evidence for all to see. |
I haven't given it because it's not an issue I'm debating in this forum.
| 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? |
5+ months I gave you evidence of these claims. |
Most of them? No. You argued a handful at best.
| The sixth month, I gave you a link to prove to you that maiden is a synonym for virgin and you act as if that is the only thing I did was provide a link to other videos. |
I never said it was the "only thing" you did, but when I said you sent me links to other people's videos, you called me a liar, saying "I didn't shoot you to the links of other people's videos". You most certainly did, and we both know it.
I asked for sites that take a skeptical look at the claims. I don't see where either site does so.
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."
|
A group of 5 skeptics. One of which is 20 something and none of them have credentials listed. |
Again, have you ever seen ANY site that has taken a skeptical look at the Zeitgeist claims and found them to be valid? |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2011 : 19:09:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Past advances in technology do not predict future performance in any particular field. The invention of the "Talkie" in no way suggested that 3-D movies were possible, for example. |
And neither do they suggest that it's impossible. Sorry, but I'm only arguing that it could, hypothetically happen. It's not my job to show you how it will, or even that it will. I'm only asking you to assume such a thing exists for the sake of putting this question to the text. If you don't want to assume it, that's your right, but then we can't go any further on this issue and can do nothing more than agree to disagree.
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. |
We already showed how free will and random numbers are denied by omniscience. |
Actually, you didn't. The problem is that if you're arguing that they're paradoxical, then you're arguing that either one can exist individually, but not both simultaneously. You were willing to assume (for the sake of argument) that God is omniscient, but we never really got anywhere in whether it disproved free will or not. So I tried turning it around, so that we're assuming (for the sake of argument) that we had free will so that we could show whether or not God's omniscience would be impossible. At that point, you refused to assume that we have free will. Obviously, I can't force you to assume things for the sake of argument, but without doing so, we can't go any further and nothing is settled.
| You didn't like the answers (but had no valid arguments against them), so you've fallen to simply demanding that we accept a premise as true that reality says is false. |
Only because without assuming (for the sake of argument) that the premise is true, we can't test whether the creator could be omniscient or not. If you don't want to test it, that's fine, but then we haven't proven or disproven whether there is a paradox.
| Had you had anything interesting or new to say regarding the logical arguments, I would have been fine assuming that either free will or a truly random number generator exists for the sake of argument. |
If you're willing to assume for the sake of argument that a truly random number generator exists, I believe that I can show you that its creator could still hypothetically be omniscient. But until you do, I can't.
But since you won't actually argue, I get to say, "who cares, reality demonstrates that these discussions are silly, anyway."
|
I will gladly argue, if you'll make either assumption for the sake of argument. If you'd prefer not to, then that's fine, too and we can call this discussion at its end. |
| Edited by - KingDavid8 on 06/20/2011 19:12:44 |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2011 : 19:33:56 [Permalink]
|
Kingdavid says:
| No, we've been discussing whether God's hypothetical omniscience is incompatible with our hypothetical free will. |
From the posts from the others, it looks to me like you were the only one discussing "gods" hypothetical anything, they were discussing the contradiction of omniscience and freewill, as was I.
| Yep, and we weren't debating whether God was real or not. |
And neither was I. I was showing you that the bible doesn't support your claim that your god was omniscient and gave freewill.
If they're repeating claims that have no evidence to back them up, then they may be "egyptologists", but they sure aren't good ones. |
What proof do you have that they are repeating the claims instead of reading the actual information and telling what they know? That in itself is a claim that you need to back that up with evidence.
| No, I think that the good Egyptologists go where the evidence actually points. The bad ones don't. |
But yet, when they give it to you, you say that they are just "repeating claims" and are "fringe Egyptologists" which is classical moving the goal posts.
| For most of the claims? No, they have not. If they had, mythicists wouldn't have so much trouble finding this evidence. |
Again, you are repeating a claim, thinking that if you repeat it enough, it will come true.
Maybe you missed the question specifically about repeating Tom Harpurs claims? Only one of those websites mentioned anything about Tom Harpur or any of his claims and that one website was someone accusing another of reading Tom Harpur.
| I am reading it correctly. You're saying that none of them disagreed with the virgin birth, but only with other claims. I'm asking where you're getting the idea that none of them disagreed with the virgin birth. |
Exactly, Gasque doesn't not mention any one of those Egyptologists disagreeing with the virgin birth. Since he mentioned the other things that Harpur had written that the Egyptologists disagreed with, it would seem important that he would mention that too. To me, that seems logical since his whole point was that Harpur was wrong.
| I didn't say he "quoted" Harpur. I said he's relaying what Harpur is saying. If you read the paragraphs before and after, it's quite clear that this is what he's doing. |
No, actually, it isn't quite clear that isn't what he is doing, because if he was doing that, then he would have said that Harpur claims these things, which he didn't. Logic tells us that since he didn't say specifically that Harpur said these things, then that is his own belief.
Then who gets to decide what is real or not in the bible david?
| When your evidence is posted, we'll just see how many of the Zeitgeist claims you back up with the actual text, okay? |
That is fine by me, but there will be no moving the goal posts when this happens. The forum members caught on to your tactics faster than I did. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt when you said you wanted the evidence, but after 5-6 months of giving it to you, I found out that you didn't want the evidence. You wanted
| If you seriously believe that mainstream Egyptologists believes this nonsense, I'll leave you to your delusion. In Gasque's article, one of the top egyptologists dismisses the claims as "fringe nonsense". What does that tell you? |
Gasque lied about Kuhn and Harpur and he did the same exact thing that you have done repeatedly. You sweep the evidence away as if it is non existent, refusing to open up your eyes to actually see it.
You have to prove that they are "fringe Egyptologists" because that sounds like your opinion to me and your opinion doesn't count, we are going by the actual evidence.
| I haven't given it because it's not an issue I'm debating in this forum. |
Actually, someone mentioned that way before I did. I think you chose to overlook his comment because you didn't want to discuss your lack of evidence of your god.
| Most of them? No. You argued a handful at best. |
Yes, most of them. I also showed you things in they Egyptian texts that ZG didn't even mention like Jesus and Horus being called the Morning Star. I suppose you are going to just wish that away too like you always do right?
| I never said it was the "only thing" you did, but when I said you sent me links to other people's videos, you called me a liar, saying "I didn't shoot you to the links of other people's videos". You most certainly did, and we both know it. |
Because as always you minimalize everything that doesn't go along with your ideology and that includes me giving you evidence.
| I asked for sites that take a skeptical look at the claims. I don't see where either site does so. |
They did, then they came to the same conclusion that I did based on the mounting evidence.
| Again, have you ever seen ANY site that has taken a skeptical look at the Zeitgeist claims and found them to be valid? |
Some of the skeptics from here:
http://www.freeratio.org and here Infidels.org
And at Infidels.org
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
| Edited by - changingmyself on 06/21/2011 17:24:08 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2011 : 09:19:50 [Permalink]
|
OK, some of the thread tracebacks are getting more than a bit long.
Lets go over the major issues that have been brought up concerning omniscienient creators and free-will.
The great majority of people here have decided, based on a logical examination of the issues, that these are mutually exclusive.
For the atheists, the terms diety, creator, and creative being refer to a theological construct which is assumed in this argument to exist. (depite lack of evidence)
1) For this particular situation, the inseparability of the omniscient being and the creator aspect are the determining factors as the logical question of "how does the being know" immediately spring to mind.
2) The main limiter in the argument is that the creative being knows every decision that will ever be made by the critter at or before the instant of creation. No discussion has been bandied about that the critter is created and then immediately afterwards the creator knows these things as it introduces a measure of uncertianty initially to the creator. Something that the concept of omniscience forbids. (but a fourth dimentional being would not as observation with that portion of uncertainty can be argued as being mistaken for omniscience.)
3) The denizens of this forum then have logically concluded that the premises advanced cannot exist in the presence of one another and therefore one of the premises is wrong.
Ergo, omniscience, as defined and coupled with the creator aspect of the theological construct cannot have free will. Likewise, a critter with free will will have a creator who will be surprised by it's creation on occassion.
You have proposed arguments a and b are true. Logical investigation indicates that arguments a and b are mutually exclusive. Ergo, either argument a or b are false.
The anecdotal evidence of the critter anguishing over some of the decisions indicate either the critter has free will from a non-omniscient creator or the omniscient creator is a mean SOB for making the critter anguish over a decision they have no control over. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2011 : 10:51:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by Dave W.
Past advances in technology do not predict future performance in any particular field. The invention of the "Talkie" in no way suggested that 3-D movies were possible, for example. |
And neither do they suggest that it's impossible. |
:headdesk: No, that's what the empirical evidence suggests.| Sorry, but I'm only arguing that it could, hypothetically happen. It's not my job to show you how it will, or even that it will. I'm only asking you to assume such a thing exists for the sake of putting this question to the text. |
It's been tested, and found contradictory.| If you don't want to assume it, that's your right, but then we can't go any further on this issue and can do nothing more than agree to disagree. |
Again, you're mistaken about what's happened here.| We already showed how free will and random numbers are denied by omniscience. |
Actually, you didn't. The problem is that if you're arguing that they're paradoxical, then you're arguing that either one can exist individually, but not both simultaneously. You were willing to assume (for the sake of argument) that God is omniscient, but we never really got anywhere in whether it disproved free will or not. |
And why not? Because you couldn't show how a decision known ages before you were born was actually yours to make.| So I tried turning it around, so that we're assuming (for the sake of argument) that we had free will so that we could show whether or not God's omniscience would be impossible. |
And I'd already explained that that was irrelevant. It doesn't matter which one you start with: if they're mutually contradictory, then proving one can't follow from the other is the same as proving the "turned around" version to be false.| At that point, you refused to assume that we have free will. |
Because you were refusing to acknowledge the logic.| Obviously, I can't force you to assume things for the sake of argument, but without doing so, we can't go any further and nothing is settled. |
Obviously, I can't force you to acknowledge the logic, but without you doing so, we can't go any further and nothing will be settled.| Only because without assuming (for the sake of argument) that the premise is true, we can't test whether the creator could be omniscient or not. If you don't want to test it, that's fine, but then we haven't proven or disproven whether there is a paradox. |
With the software example, we absolutely disproved randomness given omniscience (because the programmer has complete control over the sequence and cannot abdicate that control), so if "truly random" is the premise from which you want to start, then we can state without qualification that the programmer cannot be omniscient.
Let me try it a different way: on any given set of hardware, there is a large but finite number of ways to create a random number generator. An omniscient programmer knows every one of those sets of code, and knows the output of every one of them. The output from his generator then can only be due to his choice of which generator to create. No sequence can be declared "random" when every one of them is implemented through an act of will. Why the numbers go 43, 65, 13 instead of 43, 66, 13 can only be due to the programmer's intentions ("plan"), and not to any amount of randomness.
So, if the programmer is omniscient, then the output cannot be "truly random." That having been proven, if we are presented with a sequence of numbers that is "truly random," we can know without question that it cannot have come from an omniscient programmer's generator.
The premises have been tested and found to be mutually contradictory. If you won't acknowledge that, it's your problem, not mine. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2011 : 12:46:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
[quote]
Let me try it a different way: on any given set of hardware, there is a large but finite number of ways to create a random number generator. An omniscient programmer knows every one of those sets of code, and knows the output of every one of them. The output from his generator then can only be due to his choice of which generator to create. No sequence can be declared "random" when every one of them is implemented through an act of will. Why the numbers go 43, 65, 13 instead of 43, 66, 13 can only be due to the programmer's intentions ("plan"), and not to any amount of randomness.
So, if the programmer is omniscient, then the output cannot be "truly random." That having been proven, if we are presented with a sequence of numbers that is "truly random," we can know without question that it cannot have come from an omniscient programmer's generator.
The premises have been tested and found to be mutually contradictory. If you won't acknowledge that, it's your problem, not mine.
|
Yes Dave, I can follow that and I'm just a commoner but let's assume now (for the sake of argument), that logic doesn't exist, and ... Oh, never mind! SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Mythicist position
