|
|
|
teched246
Skeptic Friend
123 Posts |
 Posted - 07/02/2011 : 11:12:05 [Permalink]
|
| But you affect free will overall by preventing the existence of those who make the other choice. |
The mere act of not creating a person doesn't affect their freewill. Why? Because the freewill of someone who doesn't exist is itself non-existent. God not creating flying spagetthi monsters or freddy krueger doesn't mean he's affecting their freewill, or, for that matter, the freewill of the infinite amount of people who will never be created. Just answer me this: Is god affecting the freewill of freddy krueger by not creating him?
| If the founding fathers created laws against saying certain things and, at the same time, told you that you were free to say what you want, then they would be complicit in any violation of those laws. |
Wait, what? How could there be laws against saying certain things while anyone is free to say what they want? |
AH-HA! Exactly. How could there be laws against doing certain things, while anyone is free to do what they want? Im glad you see the contradiction in the bible. Remember, you're the one making the analogy between "freewill" and "freedom of speech".
| The founding fathers aren't complicit in the violation of any laws, given that "freedom of speech" itself means that, there aren't any laws against speech to be broken. |
There doesn't have to be. |
As long as you're making an analogy between divine freedom (freewill) and legal freedom (freedom of speech), you're also making an analogy between the ABUSE of divine freedom and the ABUSE of legal freedom, correct? Your analogy is flawed since the abuse of divine freedom is relative to something else that is divine (divine laws), whereas the abuse of legal freedom is not is not relative to anything else legal; there are no laws against speech. In other words, the context in which you're use the term "abuse" or "misuse" changes fundamentally when speaking of the violation of divine laws.
POINT AND CASE #1: God's approval or disapproval of what you do in your own freewill is DEPENDENT on whether or not he has set up laws or rules in the first place, whereas the founding fathers' approval or disapproval of what some people will say in their own freewill is independent of this pre-condition. For example, the divine law that required first borns to be sacrificed could not have been violated had god not created it in the first place, in which case god wouldn't have disapproved of anyone not sacrificing their first borns. On the otherhand, the founding fathers' own personal disapproval of what some people would say in their own freewill exists regardless of there being a rule prohibiting freespeech; the personal opinions of both the founding fathers and american citizens are "personal", voiced or not.
POINT AND CASE #2: Not only was god certain that his laws would be violated if he created certain people, he actually went ahead and created that specific lot of his own volition. The founding fathers didn't create people, much less create people with different opinions. They wanted freedom, and thus had NO CHOICE but to grant freedom of speech. This is the opposite of the "creation" scenario. Your analogy is invalid.
| Exactly. So when god was creating unrepentant sinners, he didn't have any hopes that they would choose to do right by him, and thus did not create them with a purpose. |
Unless His purpose was about something different than whether they would do right by Him. |
Want to repeat that a little louder for the classroom: GOD'S PURPOSE FOR CREATING UNREPENTANT SINNERS WASN'T THAT THEY DO RIGHT BY HIM AND REPENT... hence, they weren't supposed to follow god's laws. Still you'll argue that, it's their choice to not obey god's laws, but why obey god's laws if you're not supposed to -- that is, if it's not god's purpose for you?
| I don't believe that hell is a place of endless physical torture. In fact, I don't believe that "time" as we know it, or "physical" as we know it, exists outside of our reality. |
| Matthew 25:46 "And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” |
And "eternal" isn't necessarily an endless amount of time, and "punishment" isn't necessarily about physical torture. I believe that God exists outside of time as we know it (since He created it). |
Firstly I never said "physical" Secondly, torment is torment, punishment is punishment be it physical or "spiritual".
| Daniel 12:2 "Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake – some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence." |
Something that exists outside of time as we know it (as God does) could certainly be described as "everlasting". |
So when the kingdom of god is established on Earth it'll just be temporary, and while it's established the damned will be suffering? Eventually, we'll all move into a timeless space where there will no longer be any torture of the dammed? Or does the torture follow in the timeless realms? Do the damned get a timeless plaque in rememberance of their unwholesome lives?
| According to christian theology our purpose is to choose to do right by god in our own freewill. |
Our purpose? The purpose of the saved and the unsaved both? Even if so, we're talking about God's purpose, aren't we? Not ours. |
 God's purpose in creating human beings was to have people who would worship, love, and obey him and repent for any sins. According to the bible, deviation from this purpose causes a "perfect being" to throw fits. Now that we have clarification on purpose allow me to reiterate that, "once we throw the element of purpose in the mix something's gotta give. You can't say that a creator was omniscient and yet had hopes (a purpose) in mind for unrepenting sinners. We either throw out omniscience, the idea that god had hopes (a purpose) for the undesirable half of creation, or the idea that god had good intentions for this group."
| Or you could be completely wrong about what you think God's purpose is. |
Or you could just be one of those moderate christians trying to revise the bible beyond recognition. For thousands of years, this is what was taught. For thousands of years, smarter and more learned christians have taught this. |
"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 |
 |
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2011 : 23:43:30 [Permalink]
|
Just to clarify: Unfortunately, there have been limits placed on criticism of the government. In fact...
In 1798, Congress, which contained several of the drafters and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights at the time, adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. The law prohibited the publication of "false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame . . . or to bring them . . . into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them . . . hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States."
The law did allow truth as a defense and required proof of malicious intent. The 1798 Act, however, made ascertainment of the intent of the framers regarding the First Amendment somewhat difficult, as some of the members of Congress that supported the adoption of the First Amendment also voted to adopt the 1798 Act. The Federalists under President John Adams aggressively used the law against their rivals, the Democratic-Republicans. The Alien and Sedition Acts were a major political issue in the 1800 election, and after he was elected President, Thomas Jefferson pardoned those who had been convicted under the Act. The Act expired and the Supreme Court never ruled on its constitutionality. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#The_Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts_of_1798
Also, there is the Espionage Act of 1917, much of which remains in law today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2011 : 06:36:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by KingDavid8
But you affect free will overall by preventing the existence of those who make the other choice. |
I thought we already came to the conclusion that you thought a little tampering with free will wasn't such a big deal? Whereever you draw the line between a little benign limitation on free will be arbitrary, so where do you draw the line, and what criteria do you use?
|
A little tampering is not a big deal, but this is something that would clearly affect the majority of the human race. Even many repentant sinners would never be born, since most of us have unrepentant sinners somewhere up our family tree (including me, since my mom's an atheist and I'm pretty sure she won't be changing her mind).
And it's not a question of where I draw the line, but where God draws it, and I can't say for sure where that is. But what's being described here does strike me as something that's almost certainly on the far side of it. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2011 : 08:23:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
Wow, you changed that up fast, first your claim was that the fringe Egyptologists were repeating claims, to repeating Massey, |
No, I never said they were "repeating Massey". Once again, you're twisting my words, and this will be my last response to you in this forum.
| But apparently is not evidence or proof, so you need to show some evidence of your claim. |
What claim, that I actually made, are you talking about?
"The stories" INCLUDE the pre-Christian mythology. For that matter, I can't find validation for most of the claims in post-Christian stories, either. I half-expect some mythicist to just make up a version of the Horus (or Mithra, Attis, etc.) story in which these details all happen and try to pass it off as the real deal, but, as far as I know, no one's even done THAT yet. |
This doesn't even make sense. Do you understand that the majority of the Pre-Christian mythology is in many different languages? |
Yes, and they've been translated to English. Or if they haven't yet, they easily could be. I'll gladly take the English translations of the pre-Christian stories as evidence for the claims. I'd even be interested in seeing the English translations of the post-Christian stories, though I wouldn't take them as evidence. But no stories, pre- or post-Christian, back up most of the Zeitgeist claims.
| The majority of the people do not read everything from Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, hieroglyphs and the many other languages. This is why we have to rely on the Professors of those various languages to explain to us what they are saying and what they mean. |
I would expect them to back up their claims by showing us the English translations of the stories.
That is just covering the Horus-Jesus claim and no, there are papyrus's and Stele's that cover these claims too. |
And they don't back up most of the claims, either.
| The only reason that you cannot "find" what you are looking for isn't because you aren't reading it right, it is because you special plead and think that ritual washing isn't the same as baptism and so on. |
It's not. And even if it was, that would only make one more claim true, not the majority of them.
| Yep, and nowhere in the conversation did I concede that the claim was true. I said it was "iffy". Big difference. |
You are lying again, I quoted you. |
Yes, but you never quoted me conceding.
| I quoted the whole conversation so everyone could see what you replied to. If you didn't concede, you would have said that you did not concede, instead you said that you changed it. |
You don't think me saying that the evidence is "iffy" is a statement that I wasn't conceding that the claim was true? Really?
| The big difference is the fact that you are trying to say that I quoted JCM to prove that you conceded and I didn't, JCM asked me if you conceded and I said that you did |
You're right. I did misread it. My apologies. It was you telling JCM I conceded, not JCM saying I did. But either way, it wasn't me.
| because you said that you accepted the information that I gave you |
Yes, I accepted it as evidence, but not as proof that the claim is true (and, again, all I'm asking for in my challenge is evidence, it doesn't have to be total proof, so it does count towards my challenge if you used it). In deciding whether a claim is true, I go with the preponderance of the evidence. But for most of the Zeitgeist claims, there isn't any evidence in the first place. For this particular one, the fact that you did find some university-level scholars who say that the claim is true does count as evidence for the claims, per my challenge.
| the whole reason why you conceded was because of the reference that I used specifically said that Isis did not have sex. |
Right, but I never conceded that the claim was true, just that there was a small amount of evidence for it (which you might argue was me "conceding", but I just wasn't conceding what you claim I was). If you had a version of the Isis and Horus story in which it was clear that the author was saying that Isis had never had sex prior to Horus' birth, I would consider that enough proof that I would concede the claim.
| Now, we will prove it right here...are these scholars just repeating the claims that Massey or anyone else said or did they get this information directly from the epithets? |
I don't know where they got their information, since they never said where they got it, as far as I know. But I will accept it as evidence for Horus being virgin-born, since it technically meets the specifications of my challenge.
But I don't conceded that Horus was, per pre-Christian mythology, virgin-born, since I don't think it's very strong evidence.
| Will you move the goal posts again or will you concede the point? |
Neither. I accepted this evidence when you presented it, I accept it now, and I will accept it if it's in the evidence you presented to the discussion. But I still don't believe that Horus was, per pre-Christian mythology, virgin born. For that, you'd need much stronger evidence, like the story where it happens.
| Saying there are books on the subject isn't the same as saying there is evidence for the claims. Heck, there are probably thousands of books claiming we have been visited by alien life forms, but I have yet to see any good evidence for these visitations. |
So a top level scholar writes a book and you wont read it because you are convinced that there is nothing in it and you compare that to alien visitation books? |
Which university-level scholar has written a book in which he or she concedes most of the Zeitgeist claims?
| When did this happen? Which scholars are you talking about? If they're "top level" scholars (that is, they work for a university or publish their research in peer-reviewed journals), then I accept their words as evidence for the claims. I have always done so. Even IF they got their information from Massey (and I've never accused them of doing such), I would still accept it as evidence. |
But yet, we have seen that you don't accept them, because the information I gave you for the Isis virginity was from top level scholars but instead of accepting it for the claims, |
Excuse me, but I did accept it as evidence for the claims. You already knew that, so why are you saying I didn't? I even posted it on my website, exactly as I've done for ALL of the evidence the people have presented to me that meets the criteria.
I've never moved the goal posts. They're right where they've always been. The types of evidence that I'll accept is right there on my webpage for all to see (http://www.kingdavid8.com/Zeitgeist/Challenge.html ). The few times that evidence has been provided, I've accepted it and posted it to my website for all to see. The problem is that no one has been able to back up most of the claims using that type of evidence. |
I just proved that you move the goal posts. You said that you accept top level scholars, I gave you top level scholars to prove that Isis was a virgin and you say on your website that scholars say that Isis is a virgin, but you do not say that the claim is satisfied, |
What the heck are you talking about? On my Horus page (http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusHorus.html ), I agree that there is evidence for the claim, and I even list the university-level scholars who agreed with the claim and the book in which they did so. And now you're saying that I'm NOT agreeing that there is evidence for the claim, even though you SAW the webpage on which I did so? So even if I accept evidence that meets the challenge, you're still going to accuse me of "moving the goal posts" and NOT accepting the evidence?
but I have given you the Pre-Christian evidence to back up their claim too, and you didn't accept that either.
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Volume 2 By G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren Page 338-339
"In a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti !, Isis herself declares: "I am the great virgin" |
And, as you already know, the word translated as "virgin" is "hwn.t", which is general word for young women or maidens. Such women do tend to be virgins, but if we see a young woman who is married and/or has a child, we wouldn't logically assume her to be a virgin.
So you claim that I don't want to see the evidence, even though I'm offering $1000 for that evidence? You really believe that I don't want to see the evidence, even though I've been asking mythicists to provide the evidence for YEARS? Do you really believe the things that you are writing? Because I doubt anyone else here does. |
Yep, that is exactly what I am claiming, because if you are moving the goal posts, if you wanted it, you wouldn't have to move the goal posts. |
I've NEVER moved the goal posts. They're right where they've been for years, and I've always accepted any evidence that meets them, and have posted it to my website for all to see.
| The Holocaust Deniers say that they want to see the evidence too, and I think they are offering a reward for those that can give them that evidence. So are the people that say that the Piso family wrote the bible, remember me telling you to go do that challenge and what your reply was about them moving the goal posts? |
Yes, that they don't have goal posts. They don't clarify what they'll accept as evidence, leaving them free to dismiss anything that's presented to them. That's why I specifically say what types of evidence I'll accept on my Zeitgeist Challenge site: http://www.kingdavid8.com/Zeitgeist/Challenge.html
If the Holocaust Denial websites or that Piso one listed what they would accept as evidence, I'd give it a go, as long as their criteria wasn't ridiculous. As for me, I'm accepting the stories where these things happen, pre-Christian images that clearly show them happening, or confirmation of the parallels from university-level scholars or peer-reviewed journals, which is a reasonable criteria that should be easy to meet, if the claims are true.
No, I never claimed that the historians personally met Jesus, or that you just needed to go on "faith". Multiple historians talking about a person having existed in recent history is evidence for that person having existed in recent history. We don't dismiss what a historian writes just because he wasn't physically present when the events happened. If we did, we'd be dismissing the vast majority of ancient history. |
And I never said that you did claim that historians met Jesus but you did say that I needed to go on faith when I said that there was no proof that Mary was a virgin because I said that there was as much evidence of her being a virgin as we have for Isis. |
First of all, you claimed that I said you needed to go on faith for the historians mentioning Jesus, and when I caught you in that lie, you're now saying that, no, I said it in regards to Mary being a virgin. One is not the other.
Secondly, I never said you needed to go on faith for Mary being a virgin, either. The Gospels make it clear that she and Joseph were abstinent while married prior to Jesus' birth (Matthew 1:25), yet we have no such statement for Osiris and Isis. So even if Horus' conception was a sexless one (which it is in some versions, but not others), there's still no reason to suppose that Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to Horus. Even if she didn't have sex during the conception, there's nothing suggesting she and her husband didn't have sex at all. Now, obviously, fictional characters can't have real sex, but if their authors were trying to tell us that Isis was supposed to be a virgin when she gave birth to Horus, you would think they'd mention that somewhere, like by clarifying that Osiris and Isis were abstinent while married, exactly as Matthew did for Mary and Joseph.
| Didn't you also claim that there was as much evidence for a historical Jesus as their was for a historical Caesar? |
No, I didn't. We have more evidence for Jesus than we do for all but a handful of ancient historical figures, but I'd say Caesar is one of the ones for whom we have more evidence overall.
But I am saying that the reasons mythicists use to dismiss Jesus would, if applied consistently, disprove much of what we know about Caesar. They claim that the historians didn't personally witness the events surrounding Jesus, but they also didn't personally witness Caesar's assassination (in fact, NO eyewitnesses to the assassination wrote an account of the events) or Caesar crossing the Rubicon (in fact, the earliest historical reference to the Rubicon crossing is about 150 years after it happened). They also claim that the discrepancies in the Gospels are evidence against the events surrounding Jesus, but we have discrepancies in the accounts of Caesar's assassination also. The historians disagree on what Caesar said, if anything, whether he bravely faced his attackers or tried to hide under his robe, and how many conspirators there were, the numbers ranging from 35 to 70, I believe. Where the stories disagree, we can question those details, of course. But the discrepancies aren't evidence against the details on which the stories agree (such as that Jesus was resurrected or that Caesar was assassinated)
We have the stories where Jesus did those things that Christians claim. Some find the stories convincing, and some don't. But we don't have the stories where Horus, Mithra, Attis, etc. did those things that mythicists claim. |
You have stories all right, but you have no clue who wrote those stories or if they are true, but yet, you believe them. |
Don't know for sure, that's true. But I find them convincing and find their credited authorships to be more likely correct than not. But for there being ancient stories in which Horus, Mithra, etc. were virgin-born, crucified, resurrected, etc., I have yet to even SEE the stories, or convincing evidence that they ever existed.
Again, if there was, mythicists wouldn't have such a hard time finding the evidence for their claims. |
How can a person who feels there is no evidence that Jesus is real prove to a Christian who claims that he was real and "died for the sins of the world" when the Christian wont read the Pre-Christian mythology or believe the Professors who write about it or when that Christian moves the goal posts for the claims constantly? |
Simple. Present the evidence to that person. Especially when they ask for it and offer to post that evidence to their website for all to see, and especially if you know for a fact that they've done so every single time you have presented the evidence, and repeatedly offer to do so for any additional evidence you present.
You say you have done so in what you submitted to the debate. So I look forward to finally seeing it, and, again, will post it to my website as promised.
And, once again, I've NEVER moved the goal posts. They're right where they've always been, and I've accepted any evidence that's met them and posted it to my website.
| Yes, it is David, if you believe it outright, you wouldn't seek evidence for it, |
You would if your goal was try to convince others that it is true, or to find ways to justify to yourself what you already believe. In general (though not always), people trying to find evidence to back up a theory are people who already believe that the theory is true.
| First, I don't "deny the evidence", since I have yet to see the evidence for most of the claims in the first place. Second, I don't claim that all Egyptologists are repeating the claims, either. Most Egyptologists ignore this nonsense. |
Yes, you do deny the evidence, yes, you have seen it and denying that you have seen it proves that you deny the evidence too. |
When did I see it? Who ever presented the evidence for most of Zeitgeist's claims to me and when?
Here is a list of roughly 400 well-known Egyptologists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_egyptologists
I'm sure that very few of the egyptologists on this list believe in most of the Horus claims, much less repeat them. I'd be surprised if even a dozen of them do so. |
WOW, so you have a list of Egyptologists and you know what they think just because you have a list of them? Please, back up your claim with evidence. |
I didn't say I can prove that no more than a dozen of them have repeated the claims, just that I'd be surprised if even a dozen of them have done so. I would.
Once again, I never conceded to Isis being a virgin. I said the evidence was "iffy". JCM claimed I conceded, but he was wrong. Understand? |
Once again, I quoted you, and you claiming that I quoted JCM proves that you are a liar. |
Once again, you never quoted me conceding. You quoted yourself claiming I conceded, then you quoted me saying the evidence was "iffy", which is a far cry from saying that the claim is true.
Wow. So you quoted that whole bit, but never actually read it? At no point in there did I concede that Isis was a virgin, so I don't know why you're calling me a liar when I say I didn't. Are you so desperate to believe that I'm a liar that you'll purposely misread what you posted, and even when it's pointed out that you misread it, still insist that it says what you claim? |
You did purposefully misread what I quoted, because you don't even know who said what. |
It was accidental, not purposeful. It really doesn't matter who claimed that I conceded, since it wasn't me. If you could find ME conceding, that would be different.
I never said that the Egyptologists just go around repeating Massey. That's you twisting my words again, and I'm getting tired of you doing so. Do it again, and I'm done talking to you on this thread.
|
Posted - 06/29/2011 : 20:42:18
Originally posted by changingmyself
So far, you have said that Egyptologists go around repeating claims, but where did they get those claims to repeat if they didn't get them from Zeitgeist and haven't read them in the original hieroglyphs?
Kingdavid says:
From whoever made them up, of course. Many of them originated with Gerald Massey. I never said or suggested that Zeitgeist was the original source for these claims. It, also, was just repeating them.
No, it was someone else named Kingdavid, in this thread, on this board, at the top of this same page. |
And once again, you're twisting what I said. You asked where the claims came from, and I said that they came from whoever made them up, some of them originating with Massey. You took that to mean that I claimed that Egyptologists just go around "repeating Massey", then asked me to prove this claim that I never made.
I think you, and everyone else here, can see why I'm done talking to you in this thread. I'll see you in the debate. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2011 : 08:39:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Complete control? Actually, he wouldn't. |
Actually, he would. He has complete control over which of the output sequences he picks. He knows exactly what code to write to generate which sequence. He cannot relinquish that control. The fact that he's got a limited set of sequences to pick from does not mean that he's not in control of the output. To say otherwise is to say that I lack complete control of my legs because I can't walk to the Moon.| No, it's not a consequence of omniscience that he's specifically writing code in order to produce a desired output. If he's trying to create a TRN generator, then I'd say it's unlikely that he's desiring a program that creates a specific string of numbers that he has in mind. |
He cannot get that specific string out of his mind.| If he did, wouldn't he create a program that automatically spits out that specific string of numbers instead of a string of TRN's? |
You're assuming they're not the same sequence.| But as I pointed out, it's a conclusion that's based on an assumption of non-randomness. |
As you pointed out incorrectly.| If we assume that the truly-random "87" would be the first number to come up no matter HOW he wrote the code (which I think is a reasonable assumption for our purposes)... |
No, it's a horrible assumption that the code is irrelevant. The output of programs depends entirely on "HOW" the software is written.
If you want to posit some magical code that creates TRNs without reference to how the code is written, then I posit a magical computer in which the number of number possible sequences is infinite (the programmer is omnipotent, after all), and thus you'll have to agree that the programmer has complete control even in your sense of the term.| ...then the output wouldn't determine the code any more than the code would determine the output. The output would be what it is no matter what the code is. |
The output and the software are both determined by the programmer's omniscience, actually. He doesn't even need to be a programmer. An omniscient knitter could see himself banging away on a keyboard without understanding any of the software, and have the computer doing all sorts of things about which he is clueless, but were nevertheless predetermined.
An omniscient programmer would, if real, find himself following a script that has simply popped into his head. If he sees himself write code that outputs a particular sequence of numbers, then that's what he'll do. If, to an outside observer, that sequence looks like it comes from a TRNG, so what? They were predetermined, period.| I'm not saying that "output determines the code" was an assumption, just that it was based on one, the assumption that the specific numbers that come up are caused by how he writes the code. If it's a TRN generator, it won't be. |
They have to be, because there are sets of code which do not produce random numbers.| But we never showed that they were contradictory one way. We came to an impasse, so I thought we'd try it another way. |
You haven't really addressed my arguments. You've been tossing out red herrings. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2011 : 09:39:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by teched246
| But you affect free will overall by preventing the existence of those who make the other choice. |
The mere act of not creating a person doesn't affect their freewill. |
Again, I said it affects free will overall.
| If the founding fathers created laws against saying certain things and, at the same time, told you that you were free to say what you want, then they would be complicit in any violation of those laws. |
Wait, what? How could there be laws against saying certain things while anyone is free to say what they want? |
AH-HA! Exactly. How could there be laws against doing certain things, while anyone is free to do what they want? Im glad you see the contradiction in the bible. |
When God made laws against doing certain things, He didn't tell us we were "free to do what we want". There were penalties for those things. When the founding fathers gave us free speech, they didn't create penalties for that free speech.
| The founding fathers aren't complicit in the violation of any laws, given that "freedom of speech" itself means that, there aren't any laws against speech to be broken. |
There doesn't have to be. |
As long as you're making an analogy between divine freedom (freewill) and legal freedom (freedom of speech), you're also making an analogy between the ABUSE of divine freedom and the ABUSE of legal freedom, correct? |
That depends. Are we talking about abuses for which there are punishments or for which there aren't?
That I am physically able to mug an old lady doesn't mean that I am legally free to mug an old lady. Just like the fact that I am physically able to have an affair on my wife doesn't mean that God is perfectly fine with me having an affair on my wife.
But there is no direct punishment for me, say, speaking in favor of monarchy over democracy, even though the founding fathers wouldn't have liked it. Just as there is no direct punishment for me rejecting God instead of accepting Him (all it means is that I will not get to Heaven and will instead face the consequences for my sins), even though God doesn't like it.
| POINT AND CASE #1: God's approval or disapproval of what you do in your own freewill is DEPENDENT on whether or not he has set up laws or rules in the first place, |
No more so than it is for the founding fathers. We know that they preferred democracy over monarchy, but they didn't set up laws or rules about whether we had to favor one or the other. Similarly, God never says anywhere that one would be punished for being an atheist, and neither do I think anyone will be. If you're an atheist, I think you're going to end up facing the consequences for whatever sins you committed, but I don't believe that simply being an atheist is a sin in and of itself. God made a rule against worshipping other gods instead of Him, but never made a rule against worshipping no gods at all.
| POINT AND CASE #2: Not only was god certain that his laws would be violated if he created certain people, he actually went ahead and created that specific lot of his own volition. The founding fathers didn't create people, much less create people with different opinions. They wanted freedom, and thus had NO CHOICE but to grant freedom of speech. |
Yes, in both cases, doing so was preferable to not doing so. God wanted people who had the ability to choose God or not, so He created people who had the ability to choose God or not.
| Exactly. So when god was creating unrepentant sinners, he didn't have any hopes that they would choose to do right by him, and thus did not create them with a purpose. |
Unless His purpose was about something different than whether they would do right by Him. |
Want to repeat that a little louder for the classroom: GOD'S PURPOSE FOR CREATING UNREPENTANT SINNERS WASN'T THAT THEY DO RIGHT BY HIM AND REPENT... hence, they weren't supposed to follow god's laws. |
Are you seriously arguing that if they don't follow God's laws, then their entire purpose can only be about NOT following God's laws? You seem to have tunnel-vision on this issue, thinking that our entire purpose, the saved and the unsaved, can only relate to whether they follow God's laws or not.
| Still you'll argue that, it's their choice to not obey god's laws, but why obey god's laws if you're not supposed to -- that is, if it's not god's purpose for you? |
Once again, I don't believe everyone's entire purpose for existing is exclusively about whether they follow God's laws or not.
| Matthew 25:46 "And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” |
And "eternal" isn't necessarily an endless amount of time, and "punishment" isn't necessarily about physical torture. I believe that God exists outside of time as we know it (since He created it). |
Firstly I never said "physical" Secondly, torment is torment, punishment is punishment be it physical or "spiritual". |
And the question is whether the punishment exceeds the crimes. If we're assuming that their punishment equals torment that goes on for years and years and years all through eternity, then I'd have to concur that the punishment exceeds the crime. But I don't believe it does.
| So when the kingdom of god is established on Earth it'll just be temporary, |
No more than God Himself is "temporary". Heaven will be outside of time as we know it, just as God is.
| Eventually, we'll all move into a timeless space where there will no longer be any torture of the dammed? Or does the torture follow in the timeless realms? |
I don't believe the punishment of the unsaved is what we would think of as "torture", except perhaps for those whose sins are worthy of such (like maybe Hitler, Mao, and "The Wiggles"). And, again, I don't believe it's what we would think of as "eternal", an amount of time that goes on for years and years, stretching out forever. I can't describe what time would be like in the afterlife, but I do believe that time as we know it is something exclusive to our universe.
| Our purpose? The purpose of the saved and the unsaved both? Even if so, we're talking about God's purpose, aren't we? Not ours. |
God's purpose in creating human beings was to have people who would worship, love, and obey him and repent for any sins. |
I disagree. I don't think that Him creating us (that is, all people) was all about how it benefits Him or about whether we repent or not.
| According to the bible, deviation from this purpose causes a "perfect being" to throw fits. Now that we have clarification on purpose |
Meaning now that you've stated unconvincingly that God's purpose was what you think it is...
| Or you could be completely wrong about what you think God's purpose is. |
Or you could just be one of those moderate christians trying to revise the bible beyond recognition. For thousands of years, this is what was taught. For thousands of years, smarter and more learned christians have taught this. |
Sorry, but I have yet to see ANY Christian teach that the purpose for the unsaved was solely to follow or "not follow" God's laws. If, hypothetically, any did, does that make them right? |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2011 : 10:23:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Complete control? Actually, he wouldn't. |
Actually, he would. He has complete control over which of the output sequences he picks. |
But he doesn't have control over what numbers come up in that sequence. If he only likes sequences with even numbers, he's completely dependent on whether or not one of his TRN generators happens to produce only even numbers. If it doesn't (and if there are finite TRN generators and the sequences are long enough and truly random, it won't), he's going to have to settle for some of those pesky odd numbers that he doesn't like. He can't help it, since, despite being omniscient and omnipotent, he doesn't control the output of any of the TRN generators.
| He knows exactly what code to write to generate which sequence. |
If they're generating truly random numbers, then his code isn't generating specific numbers. He can generate X-number of sequences and choose between them, but he can't generate the specific sequence he wants. If it comes up, he can choose it. But if it doesn't come up, he can't. Despite being omniscient and omnipotent, he's dependent on what numbers happen to come up.
| The fact that he's got a limited set of sequences to pick from does not mean that he's not in control of the output. |
I already showed you how it does. With the 4-TRN-generators example, he can't control whether his first number will be a "99". If he desires a specific sequence, he's completely dependent on whether any of his TRN generator produce that specific sequence. If the sequences are long enough, he's going to have to settle for a sequence that just "comes closest" to what he wants, not the sequence he wants. If he desires even numbers, he can only pick the sequence that has the most even numbers, and will have to settle for whatever odd numbers happen to come up.
| If he did, wouldn't he create a program that automatically spits out that specific string of numbers instead of a string of TRN's? |
You're assuming they're not the same sequence. |
With finite TRN generators, it's very possible they won't be. In fact, if the string is long enough, it's guaranteed that they won't be.
| If you want to posit some magical code that creates TRNs without reference to how the code is written, then I posit a magical computer in which the number of number possible sequences is infinite (the programmer is omnipotent, after all), and thus you'll have to agree that the programmer has complete control even in your sense of the term. |
If the number of possible sequences is infinite, then, yes, the programmer has complete control of the output in every sense of the term (assuming that we're dealing with a finite sequence, that is, and I'd rather not get into infinite TRN generators producing infinite sequences, since that can get rather mind-boggling - and what if the numbers themselves instead of being only 2-digits can be infinitely big? No, let's not go there...). There, we've gone with what you posited and settled that, so let's now go with what I posited, okay? Wouldn't that be fair?
So if the TRN's are created truly randomly, without reference to how the code was written (so that no matter how you wrote the code, the same numbers would somehow come up), then wouldn't you agree that an omniscient programmer would know what the numbers would be, despite him not controlling what the numbers would be?
| An omniscient programmer would, if real, find himself following a script that has simply popped into his head. If he sees himself write code that outputs a particular sequence of numbers, then that's what he'll do. If, to an outside observer, that sequence looks like it comes from a TRNG, so what? They were predetermined, period. |
If they're TRULY random, then they aren't pre-determined, just pre-known. Big difference. If he knows that he can't get a truly-random "99" at the beginning, then he can't get a truly-random "99" at the beginning, unless he creates a generator that doesn't create TRN's, but is specifically coded to create a non-random "99". If you still want to argue that the first number is "predetermined", then it's not pre-determined by our omniscient, omnipotent programmer, at least. If he wants a "99", but can't get it with a TRN generator, then he's not controlling what number comes up. He's only settling for what number comes up.
You haven't really addressed my arguments. You've been tossing out red herrings.
|
What argument of yours do you think I haven't addressed? If I failed to do so, I promise to give it my best shot now. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2011 : 19:38:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Despite being omniscient and omnipotent, he's dependent on what numbers happen to come up. |
Despite being omnipotent, he's doomed to write whatever code he's seen himself write which will provide whatever number sequence he's seen the code providing. It's not random, it's going according to some plan that's not his to control at all.| The fact that he's got a limited set of sequences to pick from does not mean that he's not in control of the output. |
I already showed you how it does. |
And I already showed you how you're wrong about that. You're telling me that I'm not in control of my car because I can't steer up at an intersection.| If the number of possible sequences is infinite, then, yes, the programmer has complete control of the output in every sense of the term (assuming that we're dealing with a finite sequence, that is, and I'd rather not get into infinite TRN generators producing infinite sequences, since that can get rather mind-boggling - and what if the numbers themselves instead of being only 2-digits can be infinitely big? No, let's not go there...). There, we've gone with what you posited and settled that, so let's now go with what I posited, okay? Wouldn't that be fair? |
Why? The whole control thing is actually another blind alley, since the programmer isn't in control of anything, but it forced to follow a script that's not his.| So if the TRN's are created truly randomly, without reference to how the code was written (so that no matter how you wrote the code, the same numbers would somehow come up), then wouldn't you agree that an omniscient programmer would know what the numbers would be, despite him not controlling what the numbers would be? |
No, he is forced to write the code in a particular manner (to generate the sequence he knows his code will output) because if he doesn't, then he proves himself to be not omniscient. The programmer has no control whatsoever. Every last thing he does is predetermined.| If they're TRULY random, then they aren't pre-determined, just pre-known. Big difference. |
Really? Come on now, tell me how.| If he knows that he can't get a truly-random "99" at the beginning, then he can't get a truly-random "99" at the beginning, unless he creates a generator that doesn't create TRN's, but is specifically coded to create a non-random "99". |
All he knows (besides everything) is that he's about to write some code that spits out a particular sequence of numbers. He doesn't have a choice in the matter at all.| If you still want to argue that the first number is "predetermined", then it's not pre-determined by our omniscient, omnipotent programmer, at least. |
No, it's predetermined by the mere fact that he's omniscient.| If he wants a "99", but can't get it with a TRN generator, then he's not controlling what number comes up. He's only settling for what number comes up. |
His desires don't enter into the equation at all, any more.| You haven't really addressed my arguments. You've been tossing out red herrings. |
What argument of yours do you think I haven't addressed? If I failed to do so, I promise to give it my best shot now. |
How about the fact that an omniscient being is forced to do what he knows he will do, and so has no control over anything in his life....
7:32:13 PM: Burn the pasta.
...
8:40:00 PM: Vurp burnt pasta.
8:40:15 PM: Stub toe while rushing to get some milk to cover the vurp.
8:40:20 PM: Wake the baby while yelling about my toe.
8:40:30 PM: Get yelled at by wife for waking the baby.
...
9:57:13 PM: Try for make-up sex.
9:57:14 PM: Get shot down.
... This would be the hell of omniscience. |
- 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 - 07/04/2011 : 20:31:40 [Permalink]
|
| No, I never said they were "repeating Massey". Once again, you're twisting my words, and this will be my last response to you in this forum. |
I asked you where the Egyptologists were getting their information from and you said who ever made them up, many originated with Massey. You can twist and turn it which ever way you want but that is what you said. I do not care in the least bit if you do not reply to me ever, do you know why? Because you are a Liar for Jesus and I have repeatedly shown that you were a Liar for Jesus.
What claim, that I actually made, are you talking about?
|
Playing dumb, doesn't cut it with me.
| Yes, and they've been translated to English. Or if they haven't yet, they easily could be. I'll gladly take the English translations of the pre-Christian stories as evidence for the claims. I'd even be interested in seeing the English translations of the post-Christian stories, though I wouldn't take them as evidence. But no stories, pre- or post-Christian, back up most of the Zeitgeist claims. |
No, they all have not been translated to English. That alone proves that you have no clue what you are talking about.
I would expect them to back up their claims by showing us the English translations of the stories. |
Yeah, they are quoted in books, that you wont read because you are convinced that there is no evidence in the books.
And they don't back up most of the claims, either. |
So you have read the English translation of the 89+ Papyrus's and Stelas?
It's not. And even if it was, that would only make one more claim true, not the majority of them. |
It is, but again, you turn a blind eye to it, just like you turn a blind eye to the multiple scholars saying this repeatedly.
| Yes, but you never quoted me conceding. |
You didn't correct me that you hadn't conceded, you replied to me and said that you changed it on your web page.
Why would you tell me that you changed it if you did not concede?
You don't think me saying that the evidence is "iffy" is a statement that I wasn't conceding that the claim was true? Really? |
I never went to your page and checked it when you posted that on the Zeitgeist forum, honestly, I don't care to read what Liars for Jesus have to say.
You're right. I did misread it. My apologies. It was you telling JCM I conceded, not JCM saying I did. But either way, it wasn't me. |
No, you just said that you would accept the evidence but yet turn around and deny it, like you have always done, repeatedly.
Yes, I accepted it as evidence, but not as proof that the claim is true (and, again, all I'm asking for in my challenge is evidence, it doesn't have to be total proof, so it does count towards my challenge if you used it). In deciding whether a claim is true, I go with the preponderance of the evidence. But for most of the Zeitgeist claims, there isn't any evidence in the first place. For this particular one, the fact that you did find some university-level scholars who say that the claim is true does count as evidence for the claims, per my challenge. |
And guess what, as I have said, Isis and Mary have just as much evidence as each other as far as the virginity claim goes because there is no test to prove virginity. Both are claimed to be virgins, and yes, you did say that you went on faith about Mary's virginity and I asked you before why you believed that the historians that wrote about Jesus after his death, and again, you said you had faith.
Right, but I never conceded that the claim was true, just that there was a small amount of evidence for it (which you might argue was me "conceding", but I just wasn't conceding what you claim I was). If you had a version of the Isis and Horus story in which it was clear that the author was saying that Isis had never had sex prior to Horus' birth, I would consider that enough proof that I would concede the
claim. |
I am not saying that you conceded to the "claim" as if Isis was tested for virginity and she was proven to be a virgin. I am saying that you conceded that there is evidence because you have repeatedly said that there are no scholars that say this, and I have repeatedly said that the scholars do say this stuff. That is what I have said all along.
| Changingmyself says: Now, we will prove it right here...are these scholars just repeating the claims that Massey or anyone else said or did they get this information directly from the epithets? |
| I don't know where they got their information, since they never said where they got it, as far as I know. But I will accept it as evidence for Horus being virgin-born, since it technically meets the specifications of my challenge. |
Seriously? You don't know where they got their information even though it says in the exact text that I quoted you where they got their information?
But I don't conceded that Horus was, per pre-Christian mythology, virgin-born, since I don't think it's very strong evidence.
|
There is just as much evidence that Horus was born of a virgin than Jesus was. Both are written in books.
Neither. I accepted this evidence when you presented it, I accept it now, and I will accept it if it's in the evidence you presented to the discussion. But I still don't believe that Horus was, per pre-Christian mythology, virgin born. For that, you'd need much stronger evidence, like the story where it happens. |
Now you are saying that you accepted this evidence when I presented it. Hmmm, I am pretty sure you said that you didn't concede.
Which university-level scholar has written a book in which he or she concedes most of the Zeitgeist claims? |
Thomas Blenman Hare
David Adams Leeming
Rev. Archibald Henry Sayce
Bojana Mosjov
Dr. Reginald Eldred Witt
James Stevens Curl
Gregory Riley
Bill Edelen
Maria Grazia Lancellotti
Roland Herbert Bainton
Gahl Sasson,
Steve Weinstein
Shailer Mathews
Ivan Van Sertima
Umar Ryad
Joseph John Campbell
Badi Badiozamani
Payam Nabarz
Kaveh Farrokh
And that is just a few of the scholars I will quote.
| When did this happen? Which scholars are you talking about? If they're "top level" scholars (that is, they work for a university or publish their research in peer-reviewed journals), then I accept their words as evidence for the claims. I have always done so. Even IF they got their information from Massey (and I've never accused them of doing such), I would still accept it as evidence. |
Again, you lie. JCM, Teched and I have repeatedly given you scholars that say this information and all you did was say "no it ain't" and/ or direct us to your website.
| Excuse me, but I did accept it as evidence for the claims. You already knew that, so why are you saying I didn't? I even posted it on my website, exactly as I've done for ALL of the evidence the people have presented to me that meets the criteria. |
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth now. You know that you haven't accepted all of the evidence and do not claim that you did. Do you recall the whole conversation about the Egyptians considering their "gods" as mortals and JCM giving you multiple quotes from scholars and you still denied it? This was after JCM quoted Isis saying that no mortal had unclothed her or something to that affect, then you argued that Osiris was a god and he didn't count. Yeah, so no, you don't accept it, you just deny, deny, deny and lie.
I've never moved the goal posts. They're right where they've always been. The types of evidence that I'll accept is right there on my webpage for all to see (http://www.kingdavid8.com/Zeitgeist/Challenge.html ). The few times that evidence has been provided, I've accepted it and posted it to my website for all to see. The problem is that no one has been able to back up most of the claims using that type of evidence. |
You have moved the goal posts.
What the heck are you talking about? On my Horus page (http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusHorus.html ), I agree that there is evidence for the claim, and I even list the university-level scholars who agreed with the claim and the book in which they did so. And now you're saying that I'm NOT agreeing that there is evidence for the claim, even though you SAW the webpage on which I did so? So even if I accept evidence that meets the challenge, you're still going to accuse me of "moving the goal posts" and NOT accepting the evidence? |
That is because you went and changed it since we started this argument, when you listed the page on here previously, I went to that page and you had not listed the scholars that say it. As a matter of fact, you just said that some scholars say that Isis was a virgin and that is it.
And, as you already know, the word translated as "virgin" is "hwn.t", which is general word for young women or maidens. Such women do tend to be virgins, but if we see a young woman who is married and/or has a child, we wouldn't logically assume her to be a virgin. |
1. Mary was also married to Joseph
2. The quote from the scholars stated that Isis had not yet had sex.
3. The word for virgin concerning Mary can also translate to young woman/maiden.
4. Maiden is synonymous with virgin, and yes, young women are presumed to be virgins
so either virginity applies to Isis and Mary or neither.
I've NEVER moved the goal posts. They're right where they've been for years, and I've always accepted any evidence that meets them, and have posted it to my website for all to see. |
You have moved the goal posts repeatedly and I am not the first to say this to you, as a matter of fact, I can make a list of around 10 people that have said that to you.
Yes, that they don't have goal posts. They don't clarify what they'll accept as evidence, leaving them free to dismiss anything that's presented to them. That's why I specifically say what types of evidence I'll accept on my Zeitgeist Challenge site: http://www.kingdavid8.com/Zeitgeist/Challenge.html
If the Holocaust Denial websites or that Piso one listed what they would accept as evidence, I'd give it a go, as long as their criteria wasn't ridiculous. As for me, I'm accepting the stories where these things happen, pre-Christian images that clearly show them happening, or confirmation of the parallels from university-level scholars or peer-reviewed journals, which is a reasonable criteria that should be easy to meet, if the claims are true. |
You say that you accept the evidence from scholars, and then you turn around and say that Egyptologists that say this are "fringe" and that no scholars agree with Zeitgeist. This is talking out of both sides of your mouth. So we gave you more and more scholars, and then you say to "send it to your webpage". No one wants to deal with you because we have seen that the one "repeating claims" is actually you.
First of all, you claimed that I said you needed to go on faith for the historians mentioning Jesus, and when I caught you in that lie, you're now saying that, no, I said it in regards to Mary being a virgin. One is not the other.
Secondly, I never said you needed to go on faith for Mary being a virgin, either. The Gospels make it clear that she and Joseph were abstinent while married prior to Jesus' birth (Matthew 1:25), yet we have no such statement for Osiris and Isis. So even if Horus' conception was a sexless one (which it is in some versions, but not others), there's still no reason to suppose that Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to Horus. Even if she didn't have sex during the conception, there's nothing suggesting she and her husband didn't have sex at all. Now, obviously, fictional characters can't have real sex, but if their authors were trying to tell us that Isis was supposed to be a virgin when she gave birth to Horus, you would think they'd mention that somewhere, like by clarifying that Osiris and Isis were abstinent while married, exactly as Matthew did for Mary and Joseph. |
Yes, you did say that you needed to go on faith about Mary being a virgin, and you also said that you needed to go on faith concerning a historical Jesus. I was the one that said that I would not put faith in how the death of Caesar was explained while you put faith in Jesus.
No, I didn't. We have more evidence for Jesus than we do for all but a handful of ancient historical figures, but I'd say Caesar is one of the ones for whom we have more evidence overall. |
Yes, you did.
http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
But I am saying that the reasons mythicists use to dismiss Jesus would, if applied consistently, disprove much of what we know about Caesar. They claim that the historians didn't personally witness the events surrounding Jesus, but they also didn't personally witness Caesar's assassination (in fact, NO eyewitnesses to the assassination wrote an account of the events) or Caesar crossing the Rubicon (in fact, the earliest historical reference to the Rubicon crossing is about 150 years after it happened). They also claim that the discrepancies in the Gospels are evidence against the events surrounding Jesus, but we have discrepancies in the accounts of Caesar's assassination also. The historians disagree on what Caesar said, if anything, whether he bravely faced his attackers or tried to hide under his robe, and how many conspirators there were, the numbers ranging from 35 to 70, I believe. Where the stories disagree, we can question those details, of course. But the discrepancies aren't evidence against the details on which the stories agree (such as that Jesus was resurrected or that Caesar was assassinated)
|
The difference is, is that no one is claiming that Caesars assassination was miraculous, where as Jesus supposedly did miraculous things. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The bible doesn't just claim that Jesus was historical, it also claims that Jesus was god, not just a "God" but the one and only real God and the son of the Creator of the Universe. Overlooking that, is like ignoring the elephant in the room, you seem to want to ignore the elephant in the room.
There is as much evidence for a historical Jesus as there is for a historical Krishna, Buddha, Horus, Attis, and Mithra.
Also, no one went around saying; "Believe in what I wrote about Caesars assassination or die/you will go to hell" and no one ever got killed for not believing the written versions of Caesars assassination, where as many people were killed for not believing in Jesus when the crusaders asked them if they did.
Changingmyself says: You have stories all right, but you have no clue who wrote those stories or if they are true, but yet, you believe them.
Don't know for sure, that's true. But I find them convincing and find their credited authorships to be more likely correct than not. But for there being ancient stories in which Horus, Mithra, etc. were virgin-born, crucified, resurrected, etc., I have yet to even SEE the stories, or convincing evidence that they ever existed. |
So you don't believe biblical scholar Bart Ehrman who says that we don't know who wrote the Gospels or why? Or the many other biblical scholars have said that? Do you think that they are "fringe"
biblical scholars that are repeating claims too?
Simple. Present the evidence to that person. Especially when they ask for it and offer to post that evidence to their website for all to see, and especially if you know for a fact that they've done so every single time you have presented the evidence, and repeatedly offer to do so for any additional evidence you present. |
No david, you cannot just present the evidence to the person, if that was the case, no Christians would be going around saying that Evolution is just a theory.
The scholars did write books that have the evidence in them or discuss the evidence that they have seen, but you wont read them. Joseph Campbell wrote a few books about it but did you read any of them? You do know that Christianity is studied in Comparative Mythology/Literature in major universities right?
This is a good book that explains Jesus life compared to other "hero's"
The Hero with a Thousand Faces
by Joseph Campbell
Joseph Campbell was professor of literature at Sarah Lawrence College 1933-1972
More...
The Golden Bough
By Sir James Frazier
Treatise on the History of Religion
Mircea Eliade-historian of religion, fiction writer, philosopher, and professor at the University of Chicago
You say you have done so in what you submitted to the debate. So I look forward to finally seeing it, and, again, will post it to my website as promised.
And, once again, I've NEVER moved the goal posts. They're right where they've always been, and I've accepted any evidence that's met them and posted it to my website. |
You have repeatedly. Just like you are doing in the "omniscient god that gives freewill" argument.
You would if your goal was try to convince others that it is true, or to find ways to justify to yourself what you already believe. In general (though not always), people trying to find evidence to back up a theory are people who already believe that the theory is true. |
This is a red herring. We aren't talking about attempting to convince others that it is true we are discussing skeptics and evidence.
When did I see it? Who ever presented the evidence for most of Zeitgeist's claims to me and when? |
When JCM, Teched, Naneux, and others posted it on the ZG video repeatedly.
I didn't say I can prove that no more than a dozen of them have repeated the claims, just that I'd be surprised if even a dozen of them have done so. I would.
|
You just got through saying that you are not accusing Egyptologists of repeating claims, now you are saying that they are repeating claims again. David, your head is not screwed on right. Seriously.
Once again, you never quoted me conceding. You quoted yourself claiming I conceded, then you quoted me saying the evidence was "iffy", which is a far cry from saying that the claim is true.
|
You said that you accepted the evidence, that is conceding to me because you have constantly said that there is no evidence for these claims. I have given you evidence.
It was accidental, not purposeful. It really doesn't matter who claimed that I conceded, since it wasn't me. If you could find ME conceding, that would be different.
|
This proves that you didn't even read it.
I never said that the Egyptologists just go around repeating Massey. That's you twisting my words again, and I'm getting tired of you doing so. Do it again, and I'm done talking to you on this thread.
|
I asked you to prove that they were going around repeating claims and you didn't give me evidence for that, I asked you to prove that they where they got their information for these claims from and you said from who ever made them up or Massey, so anyone with a brain could see that you are saying that they got their information from Massey and are repeating claims that they got from Massey. 2+2=4 every time.
And once again, you're twisting what I said. You asked where the claims came from, and I said that they came from whoever made them up, some of them originating with Massey. You took that to mean that I claimed that Egyptologists just go around "repeating Massey", then asked me to prove this claim that I never made. |
1. You state above that the Egyptologists are repeating claims.
2. I asked you where they are getting their information from and you
said
"From whoever made them up, of course. Many of them originated with Gerald Massey."
3. So, if many of the claims originated with Massey, you are stating that they are repeating Massey.
4. I want evidence that the Egyptologists are repeating any claims, I do not care who they get them from.
I think you, and everyone else here, can see why I'm done talking to you in this thread. I'll see you in the debate.
|
I think that everyone here can see that you have moved the goal posts, posted fallacy after fallacy, special plead and lied.
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
| Edited by - changingmyself on 07/05/2011 05:59:08 |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2011 : 16:49:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Despite being omniscient and omnipotent, he's dependent on what numbers happen to come up. |
Despite being omnipotent, he's doomed to write whatever code he's seen himself write which will provide whatever number sequence he's seen the code providing. It's not random, it's going according to some plan that's not his to control at all. |
So are you agreeing that an omnipotent, omniscient computer programmer can know what numbers his program will create without being in control of them? Because that's the point I was making with the analogy.
| So if the TRN's are created truly randomly, without reference to how the code was written (so that no matter how you wrote the code, the same numbers would somehow come up), then wouldn't you agree that an omniscient programmer would know what the numbers would be, despite him not controlling what the numbers would be? |
No, he is forced to write the code in a particular manner (to generate the sequence he knows his code will output) because if he doesn't, then he proves himself to be not omniscient. The programmer has no control whatsoever. Every last thing he does is predetermined. |
So what part of my question are you saying "no" to? He knows what the numbers will be, correct? He doesn't control what the numbers will be, correct? So he knows what the numbers will be without controlling them, correct?
| If they're TRULY random, then they aren't pre-determined, just pre-known. Big difference. |
Really? Come on now, tell me how. |
Because they're random. Numbers aren't random if they're pre-determined, and they aren't pre-determined if they're random.
| What argument of yours do you think I haven't addressed? If I failed to do so, I promise to give it my best shot now. |
How about the fact that an omniscient being is forced to do what he knows he will do, and so has no control over anything in his life. |
You're assuming the omniscient being is part of linear time as we know it. I'd say God created linear time, and thus isn't subject to it. How it exactly works, I'm not sure, but I'd say that "knowing what he will do" and "deciding what he will do" are one and the same. He doesn't know what he will decide prior to deciding it. The deciding and the knowing are intertwined. |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2011 : 10:29:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
So are you agreeing that an omnipotent, omniscient computer programmer can know what numbers his program will create without being in control of them? Because that's the point I was making with the analogy. |
Well now he's not in control of anything, so it's hardly fair to call it "his" program. But nevermind that. The "control" thing is a red herring. This whole discussion (going back to the glass of water) was never about an omniscient being "controlling" anything, other than in your objections. It's a logical contradiction that's the problem.| Because they're random. Numbers aren't random if they're pre-determined, and they aren't pre-determined if they're random. |
Exactly my point. The two things are mutually contradictory (omniscience necessarily implying predetermination).| You're assuming the omniscient being is part of linear time as we know it. |
I'm assuming that the omniscient computer programmer is otherwise human. Adding more magical traits to him after the analogy doesn't work like you wanted it to is moving the goalposts.| I'd say God created linear time, and thus isn't subject to it. How it exactly works, I'm not sure, but I'd say that "knowing what he will do" and "deciding what he will do" are one and the same. He doesn't know what he will decide prior to deciding it. The deciding and the knowing are intertwined. |
Apologetics. Can you provide an example of something which we can agree isn't subject to linear time? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2011 : 17:32:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by KingDavid8
So are you agreeing that an omnipotent, omniscient computer programmer can know what numbers his program will create without being in control of them? Because that's the point I was making with the analogy. |
Well now he's not in control of anything, so it's hardly fair to call it "his" program. But nevermind that. The "control" thing is a red herring. |
We were talking about whether we have free will or not, so the question of who or what controls are actions is exactly the issue at hand. If God doesn't control us, yet still knows everything we're going to do, then the control must be with us. There are no other players in this except for us and God, are there? At least none who it could be argued "control" what we do.
| This whole discussion (going back to the glass of water) was never about an omniscient being "controlling" anything, other than in your objections. It's a logical contradiction that's the problem. |
Your "contradiction" was that if God knows what we're going to do, then what we're going to do must be decided for us, meaning we don't have free will. Right? But if God isn't the one controlling what we do, and we aren't in control of what we do, then who or what is? Who writes the script?
Personally, I'd say that we will do what we will do, and God just knows what "what we will do" will be. But the control still lies with us.
| Because they're random. Numbers aren't random if they're pre-determined, and they aren't pre-determined if they're random. |
Exactly my point. The two things are mutually contradictory (omniscience necessarily implying predetermination). |
Omniscience doesn't imply predetermination, though. Not unless knowing equals controlling, which it doesn't. Omniscience is only about knowledge, nothing more.
| You're assuming the omniscient being is part of linear time as we know it. |
I'm assuming that the omniscient computer programmer is otherwise human. Adding more magical traits to him after the analogy doesn't work like you wanted it to is moving the goalposts. |
Yes, he would be part of linear time. But his omniscience only means that he knows what he is going to do, not that he doesn't control what he is going to do. His knowing and deciding could still be one and the same, as it is with God. If he foresees every move he is going to make, it just means that he pre-decides every move he is going to make.
| I'd say God created linear time, and thus isn't subject to it. How it exactly works, I'm not sure, but I'd say that "knowing what he will do" and "deciding what he will do" are one and the same. He doesn't know what he will decide prior to deciding it. The deciding and the knowing are intertwined. |
Apologetics. Can you provide an example of something which we can agree isn't subject to linear time?
|
Well, there's the empty space beyond the expanding universe. If there's nothing moving in that area (including light), then I'd say it's not subject to linear time, at least currently. But I'm not sure how that helps us. I'd also say that whatever matter and energy existed prior to the Big Bang (if any) was probably not subject to linear time until the Big Bang happened, but I don't know if you believe that the matter and energy existed forever prior to the Big Bang, or if it was created BY the Big Bang. But if it was just sitting there, not moving, not affected by anything around it, then I'd say it wasn't subject to linear time. But, again, I'm not sure how that helps us. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2011 : 03:09:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Apologetics. Can you provide an example of something which we can agree isn't subject to linear time?
|
Well, there's the empty space beyond the expanding universe. |
No there isn't. There isn't anything beyond. Not even "nothing".
You need a refresher in current cosmology
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 07/09/2011 14:31:03 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2011 : 08:52:52 [Permalink]
|
And I didn't think this thread could take a turn towards dumber. My mistake.
|
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Mythicist position
