Religious/Philosophical discussion, your thoughts Options

[TetraGrammaton C...]

this thread was inspired by the atheist video thread

we have not had one of these in a while. i thought it would be interesting if people wanted to have an ungoing discussion about what beliefs/morals/religious ideas/scruples they have and why they have them.

i will try to interject myself as a catalyst when i have time.

i would ask that no one is too inconsiderate of other people's ideas. however, i do not think their is anything wrong with light humor or logical criticism.



as for religious trends, it seems that our generation is having difficulties with Christianity, ranging from "I'm spiritual, not religious" to the casual "Christian" that does not really believe in Jesus, but believes in the Christian god. I have met several people who treat religion like a buffet, picking and choosing which particular characteristics of the ethos that seem most suitable. this seems to be indicative of a deterioration of religion in general, as if what was once considered dogmatic is now flexible and relative. aside from the particular personal relevance to our own lives, there also exists a greater societal relevance. what will change in our country if we are on a religious downslope? can religion die out or is it cyclical? who will win flying shark vs. flying crocodile? what about a flying spaghetti monster? does it come with breadsticks? when was the last time you ate at olive garden? etc. etc.

[Jim]

Also, I am not saying Free Will doesn't exist. I am saying that Free Will with the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist.

[Trespass]

Also, I am not saying Free Will doesn't exist. I am saying that Free Will with the Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist.

Not me, i don't believe in free will now thanks to your brilliance. I mean just this weekend i PREDICTED the cowboys to win over the giants from what i seen taking place with them, and since it happened, thats means they didn't REALLY have free will over it since i predicted it and it happened!!!

[Jim]

Not me, i don't believe in free will now thanks to your brilliance. I mean just this weekend i PREDICTED the cowboys to win over the giants from what i seen taking place with them, and since it happened, thats means they didn't REALLY have free will over it since i predicted it and it happened!!!

There's a difference between predicting the outcome of a given situation and straight up knowing what will or will not happen. Again, Jesus straight up tells Peter he will deny him 3 times. That's not a prediction, that's telling him what will happen.


Prediction != knowing

[Trespass]

There's a difference between predicting the outcome of a given situation and straight up knowing what will or will not happen. Again, Jesus straight up tells Peter he will deny him 3 times. That's not a prediction, that's telling him what will happen.
Prediction != knowing

See... your tryiing to say what it was.. who are you? Bible doesn't say that judas and john couldn't CHOOSE to go the other direction. They still had free will, but don't you think GOD could have all the information going on to make a prediction of what someone will do? Just because he said "you will deny me" doesn't necessarily mean it was a foregone conclusion, it could very well mean that god could look at the nature of john himself and see that in the circumstance he would deny him. We're talking someone with all knowing, don't you think they could make a judgment (Especially if time was of no consequence to them able to see forward and back through time) on something... even if free will IS given?

Your merely arguing the definition of "free will" to me. Since someone can see what someone else will choose before hand to you means there is no free will, i would disagree.

(just a couple of weeks ago i was arguing against gods "free will" and "pre-determination" to a strict baptist... ha ha i'd argue with a ham sandwich)

[Billy]

See... your tryiing to say what it was.. who are you? Bible doesn't say that judas and john couldn't CHOOSE to go the other direction. They still had free will, but don't you think GOD could have all the information going on to make a prediction of what someone will do? Just because he said "you will deny me" doesn't necessarily mean it was a foregone conclusion, it could very well mean that god could look at the nature of john himself and see that in the circumstance he would deny him. We're talking someone with all knowing, don't you think they could make a judgment (Especially if time was of no consequence to them able to see forward and back through time) on something... even if free will IS given?

Your merely arguing the definition of "free will" to me. Since someone can see what someone else will choose before hand to you means there is no free will, i would disagree.

(just a couple of weeks ago i was arguing against gods "free will" and "pre-determination" to a strict baptist... ha ha i'd argue with a ham sandwich)

This argument is exactly why I don't think you "get it". If someone can be predicted, they do not have free will. And that's the problem with the concept of god being all knowing. If he knows what you'll do, obvious, what you were going to do is predetermined. And if that's the case, you cannot have free will (you are incapable of actually making the choice). Why is set of logical statements difficult to comprehend?

I never saw myself defending any of Jim's arguments, but he has you here.

Just a note: I really do not think this thread was started to debate. So we can agree to disagree. Some believe in free will, some do not. That should be the end of it.

[Trespass]

This argument is exactly why I don't think you "get it". If someone can be predicted, they do not have free will. And that's the problem with the concept of god being all knowing. If he knows what you'll do, obvious, what you were going to do is predetermined. And if that's the case, you cannot have free will (you are incapable of actually making the choice). Why is set of logical statements difficult to comprehend?

I never saw myself defending any of Jim's arguments, but he has you here.

Just a note: I really do not think this thread was started to debate. So we can agree to disagree. Some believe in free will, some do not. That should be the end of it.

ha ha, OMGZ PEON DISSAGREZ WIF ME OUZ NOOES!!!

its a forum... started to fuel discussion, so im pretty sure giving opinions is allowed and part of the point of posting...

And i DO "get it" I fully understand what you are saying. I am merely saying that ya'll are DEFINING what something is and isn't. I am merely saying you aren't the defining source of what a god can and can't do for "free will" to exist. I personally don't think i was to jerk off at a point in time to a certain dirty thought (if god could see the future). Have you thought of the idea that perhaps its a mixed bowl? Sure we make our own decisions, but they are made within a rule bound world with limited variables. To you that means its not "free will" i would simply disagree. So YES i am saying we are agreeing do disagree, but why does that mean we can't speak about our views... is peon now the ruling master of what i can and can't say?

And i don't think jim or I are trying to "prove the other wrong" more than just try to punch holes in each others views ... which helps one refine their own beliefs around points made from opposite sides. If you never have an opposite side question your view, how can you ever give your own view credence?

EDIT: Damn it you made me mute pti and miss them talking about mavs!