|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:31 pm
Sinner NewAgeLink Sinner I understand what you're getting at. But that doesn't make it any more correct. 'kay, so we have different opinions. Moving on. So you make a claim, I ask you to back it up, you do so ever so badly and I call you on it, then your reponse is "OMG IT WAS MY OPINION!!!"? Hm, 'ever so badly' yet you see my point? As for it being my opinion, that's right. One, who else's would it be, and two, I never 'made a claim.' I made a statement. About my opinion. (I'm getting tired of wasting my time with you.)
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:34 pm
NewAgeLink Hm, 'ever so badly' yet you see my point? Yeah, I'm pretty smart. NewAgeLink As for it being my opinion, that's right. One, who else's would it be, and two, I never 'made a claim.' I made a statement. About my opinion. You make it sound like there's a difference. NewAgeLink (I'm getting tired of wasting my time with you.) Cute! Very cute. I notice you also didn't reply to several of the things I said in regards to the actual topic at hand. So since you don't have the time to reply to on-topic posts or off-topic posts, I'm left wondering why you made this thread in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:38 pm
Sinner NewAgeLink As for it being my opinion, that's right. One, who else's would it be, and two, I never 'made a claim.' I made a statement. About my opinion. You make it sound like there's a difference. Since when did someone's opinion have to be proven okay for them to think? Get over yourself. Sinner I notice you also didn't reply to several of the things I said. I've replied to everything worth a response. Have a pleasant evening; goodnight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:40 pm
NewAgeLink Since when did someone's opinion have to be proven okay for them to think? Since when did you get to put words into my mouth? And you're astonishingly bad at "moving on" as you called it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:43 pm
Ooh, ooh, cheap parting shot time: NewAgeLink I've replied to everything worth a response. Come on. In the same post? Now, I'm all in favor of hypocrisy, but that's just pushing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 9:44 pm
Mechanism Sinner "Pro-abortion"? No one in the world is "pro-abortion". Well, maybe there is. Like, a psychopath who is worried about overpopulation. xp Anyway, I think that there is a bigger issue here which your quandary is addressing: how can people have free will when God is omniscient? -If God is omniscient, God knows what decision you are about to make. -There is only one true outcome to your decision. -If you did not choose that one thing, God's 'knowledge' is false, and God wasn't omniscient to begin with. -If you can only choose one thing, you don't have free will. So then, how is it possible to have more than one possible potential outcome for your decision, while there is only one true outcome (which God knows)? If God did give u freewill went into the future and knew what u would do. wouldnt you still have that freewill. God puts you on earth (which is limited by time) to do what u want gives u a chance to choose him while, he isnt limited by time he can see what u did choose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 6:00 am
NewAgeLink Mechanism -There is only one true outcome to your decision. What do you mean by 'true'? It is true that there will be only one outcome to your decision... Imagine a timeline of events in your life. At any one point in your life, there is only one true set of circumstances, because of the rule of non-contradiction (i.e. a proposition cannot be true and false in the same way at the same time). The reason why I mentioned the concept of omniscience before this, is that it seems to lead logically to: God knows the true set of circumstances at every instant in your life; even in the future. For any given decision that you make, the set of circumstances which God knows to be true are the is the 'one true outcome'. (And God cannot know two contradictory things to be true at once: it would be nonsensical.) NewAgeLink Mechanism -If you did not choose that one thing, God's 'knowledge' is false, and God wasn't omniscient to begin with." I don't quite see why you say this. While you are free to make either choice, God knows which one you will choose. You are correct in saying this, but what you are describing is an impossibility; you can't "trick" God. I said this, to show that the decision which leads to the 'one true outcome' is the only possible decision which you can make if God is omniscient; anything else would be contradictory with the omniscience. NewAgeLink Mechanism "Because, if there's not more than one possible choice, you don't have a choice to begin with." Right... I fail to see your complaint/argument. Imagine that timeline again. Your life will include all of those events without exception. There is no possible way to make a decision which does not lead to the 'one true outcome', and so you are completely restricted in every decision you make: thus, no freedom. Quote: 1. You can walk through door one or door two. 2. God knows which door you will choose. 3. You choose [this door.] 4. God knew which door you would choose. You had the choice of either door, and you decided. God wasn't incorrect, nor did he force you to choose. The door which is not [this door] was never actually an option if God knows that it's not an option (that is, if He knows that it is true that you will choose the other door). ----------------------------- Kajorita: you too should respond directly to the arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:53 pm
NewAgeLink I don't see what there is to prove. Seems obvious to me. Whether or not it is obvious, has no bearing on whether or not it needs to be proved. Secondly, no, it's not that clear. They are not different. Your first responce regarding his on freewill. Quote: I don't believe in fate. While yes, God may know how my life will go, I'm the one who lives it. So, then choose between the two: God is omnipotent; or God is not omnipotent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:25 pm
NewAgeLink Sinner And to save pages of idiotic bickering, the abortion issue always boils down to a simple question. Should a fetus be considered a person? If so, then killing it is equal with killing a fellow born human being. If not, it's nothing more than killing a liver or an rat. Before I can answer that, I must answer the question, "Does God give souls to children who He knows will never have a chance to live?" I suppose the way I phrased that -- 'children' -- means I do often consider fetuses to be children. But getting back to my question: Does God give souls to children who He knows will never have a chance to live? If so, why? I'm thinkin' maybe God only gives souls to children He knows will have a chance to live. (Of course, that doesn't let ME off the hook, if I ever face that decision...) That's an interesting.. theory?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 9:34 pm
Okay, I now understand your argument, Mech; thanks. I do not agree with the claim that because you didn't choose it you couldn't choose it. I don't believe you deciding against something was God forcing you to not choose it. The entire thing is nonsensical, but thanks for explaining it to me. (I know I'll be asked to defend my 'claim' that it is nonsensical, so I'll say now that the claim that you CANNOT choose something because God knows you won't is unfounded, an idea and nothing more, if anything an abuse of space/time continuum, if applied as fact.) I decide what I choose; God merely knows what I'll choose. Don't try to overcomplicate it. I'm not even sure if God is omnipotent; I've just realized I've never seen any Scripture saying God is omnipotent. I did, however, just read Exodus 32, which seems to suggest the opposite, unless God was simply testing Moses. biki22 [Your first post has] an interesting.. theory? It's an interesting idea. It's not a theory, I've realized, as I have no evidence for or against it (but reasons to think against it.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:04 am
NewAgeLink Sinner According to that premise, fetuses aren't alive (since they haven't yet had a "chance to live") so the entire issue is null anyways. No... I'm not saying we get souls when we're born. I'm saying, "What if God only gives us souls at conception if He knows we're going to have a chance to live?" If you have never felt the live baby in your womb then you don't know. They move and they feel. I think that a child has a soul from conception or they would not be able to move around. All children have souls from conception. That is why I am anti-abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:09 am
winter4time If you have never felt the live baby in your womb then you don't know. They move and they feel. I think that a child has a soul from conception or they would not be able to move around. All children have souls from conception. That is why I am anti-abortion. Do ants have souls?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:54 am
winter4time If you have never felt the live baby in your womb then you don''t know. I can imagine what that feels like, sure; but no one can ever really know anything; that''s one of the limitations of reality... but yeah, I''m bein'' too literal; I know what you mean. winter4time They move and they feel. ... All children have souls from conception. That is why I am anti-abortion. That''s why I believe abortions are still murder; it was a child, it would have lived, if you hadn''t killed it... As for having souls from conception, I believe there''s more reason to think that than God selectively giving souls to "survivors of the womb," sure. winter4time I think that a child has a soul from conception or they would not be able to move around. Well, -- as Sinner said -- I dunno about that... you ever killed a spider or a wasp (or a number of other bugs?) They keep movin'' even after they''re dead...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:57 am
Ugh, what the hell is it with Gaia and doubling my apostrophes... stupid forum. "We can give you pretty pictures and stick them together, but we can't do half of what a good forum should..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:06 am
NewAgeLink winter4time They move and they feel. ... All children have souls from conception. That is why I am anti-abortion. That''s why I believe abortions are still murder; it was a child, it would have lived, if you hadn''t killed it... As for having souls from conception, I believe there''s more reason to think that than God selectively giving souls to "survivors of the womb," sure. Preventing someone from existing is not murder. Not even close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
