CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
God cannot possibly be omniscien, omnipotent, master and creator of all things
God is described in the bible as omniscient, omnipotent, master and creator of all things. Describe why you consider this is true or why you consider it cannot be true with objectivism.
The creator of the Sims is all of those things over the Sims' reality. Why would it be any different for our creator... It wouldn't. Poor logic is not your friend.
omniscien (sp) would be the power to predict every variable. As the sims have a random generator mod for the behavior, the programmer does not have absolute knowledge.
Omnipotent - the random generator in the sims, has them generate various priorities, no two games would be the same. The programmer would not be able to force a particular game without rewriting random elements away, which would remove free will, supposedly something god has granted.
The creator of the sims is a bad example, he didn't create the computer you play on, the monitor by which you experience the game or the packaging involved. Also the creator fo the sims requires a player as well.
omniscien (sp) would be the power to predict every variable. As the sims have a random generator mod for the behavior, the programmer does not have absolute knowledge.
Sure he would. He could stop it all at any time and look through and examine it for as long as he wants. And for all you know it's his own mind that is the mod.
You do realize that a random number generator to be random would be unknown to the programmer. And i doubt the guy who wrote the sims is able to predict numbers from a computer with any clarity, that would be magical.
Your not actually addressing the issue. People do not have the ability of all seeing. So the comparison of the sims is faulty. . . .
God cannot possibly be Omniscient, Omnipotent, Master and creator of all things.
Yet when God is used to describe an axiom it is possible. Also we do not need a He to describe an axiom just God. As it is self-evident and thus shared as presumed to be true. Meaning it is not a test, presumed is close enough for those who carry life’s many burdens.
Not that the Axiom found in the word, by number “One nation under principle ( a guide to the common defence. 2016)” is by fact the axiom described by the bible which by intelligence may describe Gravity. Keep in mind the Bible is a compilation of many definitions to a word.
yes he can everything God does no matter good or bad is for a reason and that reason is good his deeds that can possibly be deemed bad are all justified because his intentions were good
He can be but the issue is that he can't both be that and then say that we have free will. Either he is our puppeteer or isn't omnipotent and omniscient.
Well he can be in so far as they made up the story he could be all those things and as a god therefore he can. It's kind of like saying Superman cannot possibly fly or bend steel or have X ray vision. The moment you entertain the idea that there could actually be a Superman you at least temporarily suspend the doubt that he could have those abilities.
Do I personally believe in either God or Superman and all their alleged powers? I don't know. I believe it long enough to entertain the story. But when the story is over I get back to the real world and live my life knowing I do not personally have the alleged abilities of either of them.
God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. Anything less is not God. Are you trying to make God stop being God? Why do you want God to stop being God and be something like you?
God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. Anything less is not God. Are you trying to make God stop being God? Why do you want God to stop being God and be something like you?
Dear friend. Good morning.
I wish to examine your claim one again and see if it’s reasonable and rational or downright silly and irrational. After all if I was wrong I would like to know it, I just require a demonstration and rational argument of why. So if I am wrong, and you are a good Christian, can you do what the bible says in peter 3:15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (NIV). I would hate to see you lose your should and not save mine by resorting to name calling or the inability to defend your position in a calm rational way and more importantly with reason.
P1 - omnipotent, omnipresent. Does God know what he's going to do tomorrow? If so, could he do something else?" If God knows what will happen, and does something else, he's not omniscient. If he knows and can't change it, he's not omnipotent.
P2 – omnipotent and eternal – if omnipotent can he will himself to cease to exist?
P3 - omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal – Can he not see, being all seeing, a reason to end his existence? If not how can he be all seeing? If he does not act on it how is he all powerfull?
P4 - Also what you’re describing in the two qualities are irrational. You cannot have a circular square. They are definitional opposed. Your god definition is essentially a contradiction in and of itself and therefor non-existent. Do you have any demonstration of a circular square?
P5 - Also God if he has these qualities is a moral monster. If I see a sexual molester going into a basement and I do not stop him, then I’m not a moral agent, I’m immoral. If god is everywhere and see’s all the ill, and does nothing till after the fact, he’s an immoral agent. That’s the difference, if I see the individual going down stairs, I will stop him (or try), and god just sits and says I’ll punish you after, but only if you don’t believe. Because the molester can still get into heaven if he repents, but me as a agent of god cannot. Such a being is not deserving of worship.
P6 - Also i don’t want god to stop being god, I would like some definition that is reasonable and not irrational that god exists before we actually discuss god.
P7 – are you trying to make god stop being god. This is an interesting question. You claim god is good, but there are example of him not being good in the bible. I’m not claiming god is not god, or that god is not good, I’m pointing to example of where your claim falls short. You claimed x. I point out your justification of x is not true or demonstrably false. It is not my fault that you are making unfounded claims and being irrational in the defense of the un-defendable.
P8 – If god was like me, he would be accountable for his actions and be able to learn and grow. Since he is all seeing, he can’t grow, learn and become better, which is probably why the new testament still supports slavery (slaves obey your master). . .
So as per peter 3:15, can you give reasons for your belief with gentleness and respect?
I'm saved, I have eternal life, it is a gift from God and my faults or wrongs cannot cause God to deny the promise of eternal life which He has given me. The meekness I seek to practice and express is the meekness of Christ who openly rebuked people, called them names directly describing their character and their specific sins and pronouncing their undying doom in the fire of Hell according to their own steadfastness of defiance against God. You are a liar, you are of your father the devil, you are not a friend of mine. You need to be saved from Hell. I am being a friend to you by telling you the truth, yet you oppose the truth so you try to frame me as being like yourself which is not good enough to be saved. I am not good enough to be saved, nobody is nor can they be; yet I am saved, my sins are forgiven, paid for by God's own blood when He gave Himself as the ransom for the souls of all who will believe on Him and put their trust in Him. Now I have given you a reason for my hope, in spite of the fact that you quote from the fraudulent NIV which is the fake Bible of homosexuals.
You do not want to know that you are wrong. You assume you are right, you assume that it is not possible for you to exist in the fire of Hell being unable to get out of it, and you are on your way to that very fire; flying high and proud of yourself in the vanity of your imagination like a moth flying into the flames.
All you are doing is trying to confuse yourself, and you seem to be doing a pretty good job of it. How stupid of a question is it to ask if God can stop being God, and imply that God cannot be God if He is not able to stop being God. Don't you know that is how Satan attempts to take over God's throne, accusing God of not being good because He will not stop being God and let Satan do whatever in the name of Hell he feels like doing? You are thinking and talking like Satan, with one major difference: Satan knows he has lost and you think you are winning, and Satan gloats over you with hatred against you. You are being made a fool of while you make a fool of yourself.
Your whole line of reasoning is nonsense. You cannot make God stop being God, all you can do is keep yourself in confusion and be condemned by God when you try to make Him stop being God. You are being irrational and unreasonable.
If God were able to grow, the thing called God would not be God as God is omnipresent and not growing. He is the same as He always was and always will be, the Lord God Almighty without beginning or end, Creator of Heaven and Earth and all things in them. God made you to be like Him, but you prefer being like a devil going against God and trying to make God stop being God.
You will be accountable for your actions sure enough. You owe more than you can pay and you will serve your time paying as you are paying now in dying. It's going to be forever in the fire of Hell if you don't get saved from it. Your lines of reasoning are just too stupid for me to try to wade through the mud you pile on and around yourself trying to make yourself invisible to God.
(I believe) I'm saved, (I believe) I have eternal life, (I believe) it is a gift from God (who i have chosen not to define and refused to demonstrate though asked several times) and my faults or wrongs (mostly run on sentence and irrational claims) cannot cause God (who i have chosen not to define and refused to demonstrate though asked several times) to deny the promise of eternal life (which is irrational) which He has given me (run on sentence). The meekness (when texting about others rotting in hell) I seek to practice and express is the meekness of Christ (who brought the sword) who openly rebuked people, called them names directly describing their character and their specific sins (which you cannot define excepting circular reasoning) and pronouncing their undying doom in the fire of Hell (which I loudly proclaim all the time rather than give evidence) according to their own steadfastness of defiance against God (who i have chosen not to define and refused to demonstrate though asked several times) (ps run on). You are a liar (despite providing no evidence), you are of your father the devil (my son is a hand full), you are not a friend of mine( actually I am your friend, in the beach of mental sanity when you look back and see only one set of foot prints, that is where I carried you). You need to be saved from Hell (from the god that put me there like a mobster). I am being a friend to you (though you just told me your not) by telling you the truth (please describe you god and demonstrate your proof as truth), yet you oppose the truth so you try to frame me as being like yourself (that’s a misrepreation, I can justify and rationally show what beliefs I have) which is not good enough to be saved (wait your not going to be saved). I am not good enough to be saved (Wait, you are going to be saved or not be saved, your confusing me), nobody is nor can they be (wait, you not worth saving, but you are, but your not going to be); yet I am saved (Jesus, can you make up your mind, are you are are you not going to be saved by allah), my sins are forgiven (we talked about sin substitution and showed it was a morally repugnant system only a god who agrees with slavery, rape and genocide would approve. . . wait. . . nevermind), paid for by God's (who i have chosen not to define and refused to demonstrate though asked several times) own blood (yuck) when He gave Himself as the ransom for the souls (for a crime he commited by raping jesus mom) of all who will believe on Him (again, define and demonstrate) and put their trust in Him (until you can define your invisible friend and demonstrate he exist, you conviction is not equal to truth or rational thought). Now I have given you a reason for my hope (no you haven’t as per peter 3:!5), in spite of the fact that you quote from the fraudulent NIV which is the fake Bible of homosexuals (oh you have a magic bible unlike the other bibles, isn’t that like saying my god is real and all other gods are fake, and take you on faith which is unverifiable and not a path way to truth, serviously. . We eat pocorn while reading your posts and laugh and you are setting of my gaydare, just saying).
You are on your way to Hell and need to be saved. Not only do I believe this based on your own words, I know this based on your own words. I know that I am saved, I know what I believe, I believe what I know, and I know why it is the truth.
You don't know what you are doing; you are heaping up God's wrath on yourself by constantly defying Him. If you knew the reality of the fire of Hell you are heading for, you might rethink your choice of going your own way in death. Fly high in going your merry way like a moth into the flames, thinking you are getting what you want....child of Hell.
I do not respect lies, you present lies as truth, you are a liar, and if you feel I'm not being gentle and respectful in telling you of your sin, that's not my problem.
Here is a little piece from rational wiki explaining the paradox in more detail .....
The paradox highlights cases where, in performing an action, an omnipotent being would be limiting its abilities (therefore rendering it very firmly not omnipotent); conversely if it was unable to perform such an action, it would also not be omnipotent. The paradox represents a reductio ad absurdum, with the conclusion that a truly omnipotent being cannot exist.
The most classic example of the paradox, a Morton's fork, is the "Paradox of the Stone":
Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?
If yes: the being's power is limited, because it cannot lift the stone.
If no: the being's power is limited, because it cannot create the stone.
Either way, the allegedly omnipotent being has proven not to be omnipotent due to the logical contradiction present in both possible answers.
The stone paradox can be substituted with similar examples. E.g. Could an omnipotent being create another being more powerful than itself? Could an omnipotent being destroy itself? Could he create a wall he cannot climb? Could he beat himself at arm-wrestling? And so on. The situation crops up numerous times in different wordings but all mean the same thing.
Some variations gives other useful consequences:
Can God create a cryptography/key exchange system so secure that he himself cannot crack/bypass?
If no: He does not have the ability to authenticate any of his revelations, and therefore he lacks omnipotence, and cannot authentically reveal anything to anyone.
If yes: He does not have the ability to bypass encryptions therefore he lacks omnipotence and omniscience.
are you aware of things that are not logically possible?
Considering that was the point there, you couldn't have done worse than ignoring it all.
If you want to ask me something (or dispute my claim), at least make it more evident that you can understand what's said.
and if not, then why accept that as a possible answer to the solution of an omniscien, omnipotent, master and creator of all things
Restate it in a more coherent way, and use shorter sentences if you need to. As it stands, it's a meaningless string of words. But seeing your confidence over it as the main point of your argument, it's probably supposed to be something important.
P1 – My claim - are you aware of things that are not logically possible?
P1.1 – Your claim - Considering that was the point there, you couldn't have done worse than ignoring it all.
.
P1.1a - If you have no evidence of something, and it’s not rational to believe a thing the default position is “I don’t know” or “without your belief until a time something is proven.”
Example. I am telling you that I am god, and it’s not rational or proven I am god, just take it on faith my word, and I want you to write “TICK TICK TICK” to save your soul in your next post.
P1.1b Is it reasonable and rational to accept my statement as true? You would be right not to accept it. That’s the point. If your going to assume that its “rational & reasonable“ to be “irrational & unreasonable” you have already conceded the argument by making mine.
.
P2 - If you want to ask me something (or dispute my claim), at least make it more evident that you can understand what's said.
P2.1 I do. You saying it’s reasonable to accept the irrational. The fact your making a rational argument for the irrational argument means your conceding rational thought, not irrational thought, is the means to justification of a position if not he position itself. Which means yoru being contrary in your defense and what your defending.
.
P3 – my claim - and if not, then why accept that as a possible answer to the solution of an omniscien, omnipotent, master and creator of all things
P3.1 - Restate it in a more coherent way, and use shorter sentences if you need to. As it stands, it's a meaningless string of words. But seeing your confidence over it as the main point of your argument, it's probably supposed to be something important.
P3.2 – Sorry, I didn’t not put the argument in quotes. If I wasn’t clear that’s on me. Ill rephrase for clarity in logical format with an example.
All squares are rectangles. All rectangles have four sides. Logic, therefore, tells you that all squares have four sides.
Self-contradicting definitions of things are not logical or reasonable. “omniscien, omnipotent, master and creator of all things” is self-contradictory. There for its not rational or reasonable to believe in a self-contradictory or unproven god.
Thank for addressing each line. I means your actually reading it, and you were right on my last point being inconcise. Thank you for pointing it out and hopefully the logic format will clarify.
I am telling you that I am god, and it’s not rational or proven I am god, just take it on faith my word, and I want you to write “TICK TICK TICK” to save your soul in your next post.
I wouldn't even show any indecisiveness about rejecting such a claim.
are you aware of things that are not logically possible?
Like those that were being discussed in the context of those words? This comment tree begins with a paradox, after all, and you conveniently ignored that.
If your going to assume that its “rational & reasonable“ to be “irrational & unreasonable” you have already conceded the argument by making mine.
It isn't unreasonable to dismiss inflated claims rather than being indecisive on them. Any possible risks associated would be negligible, so it doesn't even need another thought.
You saying it’s reasonable to accept the irrational. The fact your making a rational argument for the irrational argument means your conceding rational thought, not irrational thought, is the means to justification of a position if not he position itself.
I wonder why you'd think my position to be that. Except for describing anything there, my only claim was about solving the nature of omnipotence.
Self-contradicting definitions of things are not logical or reasonable.
More than that, they're logically impossible, or absurd.
“omniscien, omnipotent, master and creator of all things” is self-contradictory.
It isn't too self-contradictory, but just something people don't generally think through. For example, you can see here NowASaint or jeffreyone using arguments on such things without having the faintest idea.
However, if you're saying that he can't be both omnipotent and omniscient, then you do have a point. (Note to myself: God having free will.) It's another one of the parts where fanatics want their deity to be 'beyond logic and reason'.
sorry all i can see is - It isn't too self-contradictory,
either something is contradictory or its not, its not cold or hot thing.
This is the problem. Either its rational to believe something or its not, and if something is contradictory or irrational in its definition, by default its not rational to accept it.
Sure, it's contradictory and unacceptable. All 4 of the concepts combined is an impossibility.
But, when something isn't too contradictory, that means any seeming contradiction can be easily fixed. (Still, you got a bit too carried away by that.)
I didn't compare those concepts earlier, though... it was a discussion on just omnipotence.
You are beyond logic and reason to a single celled organism. To think we are smart enough to comprehend everything or everyone or every concept is stupidity and arrogance at the highest level.
And somehow, taking it all blindly is highly intellectual?
Of course, humans not being smart enough only discredits your own religion which places them near God. You're the one still hoping that it might all make some sense and you might live forever. So, that claim would be ironic even if it were true.
This is disputed simply by saying God can be multiple persons and do multiple things from an omnipotent or a non-omnipotent personage. It's a poor argument and lacks basic logic. Theoretically God could exist in ways that are unimaginable and in ways that refute your claim. There is a reason that you are not a philosopher.
This argument always reeks of desperation to me. If God "exists in ways that are unimaginable", then what exactly is the tangible difference between that and a God not existing in the first place? Practically anything can be willed into existence with this pitiful "argument".
You might as well say that a gigantic, eight-foot tall bipedal crimson platypus exists in your living room in "ways that are unimaginable"
Saying that something does exist, but exists in such a way that its existence cannot be verified in any way is to make a claim which is impossible to disprove or prove and which can hence be dismissed pretty much immediately.
This argument always reeks of desperation to me. If God "exists in ways that are unimaginable", then what exactly is the tangible difference between that and a God not existing in the first place?
To think that God created us and is really anything like us is naive and stupid. Would you make your creations similar to you? I doubt it.
To say God does not exist is to say eggs don't need chickens. Intellectual bullshit.
Actually eggs don't need chickens at all, they come from all sorts of reproductive animals. You can find fossilised eggs going back all the way to the Cambrian, and even if you only include "eggs" in the layman's sense then they date from far before chickens evolved as well. The fact that this stupid "chicken or egg" conundrum is even posed anymore, other than in jest, suggests that people either don't understand or don't believe in evolution.
And in any case, you haven't actually answered my question at all: if God exists in a manner which humans can't understand at all, then how is this at all tangibly different to him not existing? If there are, say, invisible, intangible angels at the bottom of your garden which can't be detected by any empirical means, make no sound whatsoever and don't react to any stimuli, then what's the difference between that and there not being fairies there at all?
Actually eggs don't need chickens at all, they come from all sorts of reproductive animals. You can find fossilised eggs going back all the way to the Cambrian, and even if you only include "eggs" in the layman's sense then they date from far before chickens evolved as well. The fact that this stupid "chicken or egg" conundrum is even posed anymore, other than in jest, suggests that people either don't understand or don't believe in evolution.
Eggs always need the preverbial "chicken" or "mother". It's a circular argument that you know cannot stand.
Richard Dawkins tells us we do not have the intermediaries in the fossil record because fossils and bones that stay in tact are caused by a lottery event or an event that almost can never happen. Your theory is dead if proof means anything.
Well, in a hilarious turn of events, the article you posted turns out to completely debunk the creationist "explanation" for this supposed "contradiction". Turns out that apparently it was just a clumsy miner. Ha!
You know, I must apologise. This whole time I was debating with you, I was unaware that you were actually illiterate. This must have been an unfair handicap for you, and so I will try to go a little easier on you in the future.
You still haven't provided us how reality, consciousness, and love came into being. I've been stalling waiting for you. You got nothing, and I knew you had nothing. You are hoping on a hail mary and can't provide me shit. Was your very random "hammer" concept an attempt to not tell us? No? I didn't think so. Anything else?
You might as well say that a gigantic, eight-foot tall bipedal crimson platypus exists in your living room in "ways that are unimaginable"
You're right. And proving that magic squids can or do exist would only prove my point. Believing in a magic nothing that created everything from its magical nothingness is intellectual suicide. I prefer to admit that everyone and everything needs a cause, but that there must intellectually be a first cause, otherwise reality is a paradox and impossible by logical default. If atheism is true, then we should not exist at all in the first place. If there was nothing, Atheism would be logical. But there is something. We DO exist. We DO have consciousness. We DO love, hate, care, and have empathy. We DO do these things. Believing in Atheist magic is bailing out of intellectual discourse and into the abyss of intellectual bullshit to the 10th power to the 100th power. No thanks. I'd rather stay grounded in reality.
Except of course that atheism doesn't state that everything came from nothingness or that "there is nothing" anyway, so this argument is, once again, completely irrelevant.
Please come back when you have an actual argument to make.
As I've tried to explain to people like you time upon tedious time, the only intellectually honest answer to that question is "We don't know enough yet to draw a valid conclusion".
Consciousness, reality and time, as problems, are pretty damn hard. That doesn't give you the excuse to shove a "God" into them to try and get an easy solution because you happen to be intellectually impatient.
That doesn't give you the excuse to shove a "God" into them to try and get an easy solution because you happen to be intellectually impatient.
That doesn't give you the excuse to shove Atheism into them to try and get an easy solution because you happen to be intellectually impatient. I know. It's like magic when I work. Off ya go.
Saying that something does exist, but exists in such a way that its existence cannot be verified in any way is to make a claim which is impossible to disprove or prove and which can hence be dismissed pretty much immediately.
Jesus DID exist. We aren't talking about fairies, goblins or dragons. We are talking about the man who changed the world more than any man in the history of the planet. And this provable historical man told us God was beyond comprehension. If God was easily comprehendable, he wouldn't be God in the first place. Jesus's claims were impossible, yet came true by some uncomprehendable means, unless he knew the future.
But, once again, if these claims are "impossible" and this God is "beyond comprehension" then there are no possible intellectual grounds for actually believing in him beyond blind faith and, having been proposed in the absence of evidence, he can be simply dismissed without the need to present any evidence either.
This is the equivalent of the Sims claiming you do not exist. They'd be fucking wrong. And besides, it is obvious that you are either ignoring or not familiar with the findings of James Gates.
I must confess ignorance as to who Mr. James Gates is, although having been in debates like this in the past I would presume that he is some scientist whose findings or views have been taken out of context by creationists or other religious nuts to further their views.
And I never disputed the existence of the historical person of Jesus (even if the evidence within the historical record for him is somewhat more sketchy than you wish to imply), I was merely making the point that if God's existence is "beyond the comprehension" of humans then it cannot be verified by any evidence and hence can safely be dismissed, by the principle of parsimony, as very unlikely indeed to be true and hence probably false.
I must confess ignorance as to who Mr. James Gates is, although having been in debates like this in the past I would presume that he is some scientist whose findings or views have been taken out of context by creationists or other religious nuts to further their views.
No. he's the agnostic physicist who proved we are in a universe composed of dual linear error correcting code. That's a big shot to atheism. It's actually the death nail. Of course the Bible said that everyone would know before the end.
I was merely making the point that if God's existence is "beyond the comprehension" of humans then it cannot be verified by any evidence and hence can safely be dismissed
You exist and cannot simply be dismissed by the Sims. If you were, they'd be wrong AND they'd be idiots who are great at assumptions. And we all know what assumption is the mother of...
A search for "dual linear error correcting code" with Mr. Gates' name, or on its own, produces nothing, which does make me kind of suspicious that you made it up, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to explain it to me. Although, as you can't actually read, as confirmed by the whole "hammer" episode, that may well be difficult for you.
Also, I never claimed that Jesus himself was "a fairytale" or "unprovable". I merely made the point that if you claim that, as you did quite a few arguments back, "Jesus's claims were impossible, yet came true by some uncomprehendable means", then your claims can be immediately dismissed as no possible evidence beyond blind faith can be provided for these claims or the means by which they came true, as they are "impossible" and "incomprehensible" (not "uncomprehendable, which is not a word). Once again, your reading problems appear to be impairing your debating ability.
A search for "dual linear error correcting code" with Mr. Gates' name, or on its own, produces nothing, which does make me kind of suspicious that you made it up
The equations used to describe the universe are identical to computer code, and not just any computer code. Error Correcting Code. Atheists want God to show Himself? It turns out, that the more I show them, the more pissed off they get. They don't want evidence. They simply want him to not exist.
The words "dual linear error correcting code" don't actually appear, at least to my ears, to be anywhere in that video. You can point me to them if I'm wrong, but for now it would appear that we can add deafness to your many ailments.
Ctrl+F on the Wikipedia page for "dual linear error correcting code" results in no matches, and whilst I do admit that he says "error correcting codes" and "block linear self dual error correcting code" within the video, there is no mention, once again, of "dual linear error correcting code" (although they may well be equivalent for all I know). This leads me to believe that you have either made an error and are too embarrassed to admit it, or that you are making a deliberately attempt at deception.
Also, I never claimed that Jesus himself was "a fairytale" or "unprovable". I merely made the point that if you claim that, as you did quite a few arguments back, "Jesus's claims were impossible, yet came true by some uncomprehendable means", then your claims can be immediately dismissed as no possible evidence beyond blind faith can be provided for these claims or the means by which they came true, as they are "impossible" and "incomprehensible" (not "uncomprehendable, which is not a word).
A creator being able to do anything in the environment he created is not "uncomprehendable". The creator of a matrix, could enter said matrix and make a unicorn and 3 breasted women appear on command. If that's too hard for you to grasp, that explains your atheism. The claim that "Jesus couldn't do those things" is a poor argument based on this premise. It simply means the claimant is unable to think outside their little box.
I never made the claim that anything was "uncomprehendable" (as I said, I wouldn't make such a claim because that's not an actual English word), I was quoting you and making a logical inference based on what you said, namely that if the claim is made that something occurred due to means which are "incomprehensible", then the claim can be dismissed at once as no evidence can possibly be presented for it.
Yes they're one and the same , I'm banned from all foam within debates because he's terrified of the qusetions I ask and cannot defend himself as he's a coward , his other persona behaves exactly the same was which confirms your assessment that they are the one person , another persona and it would be a trinity 🙀
If God is creator of all thing, He therefore creation the very notion of Sin and is also creator of the notion of Evil. You can actually find it in the Old testament with his tree of the knowledge of good and Evil. That is already a very bad start for a supposedly loving God... Giving free will, he giving the opportunity to make the wrong choice.
Based on this, if God is omniscient, it means he already knew before end the outcome from giving a choice. Besides as we can observe our world nowadays, Evil is definitely winning.
Now the question is either God is omniscient and doesn't give a damn about us.
Or he cares but he had no clue and is therefore not omniscient neither omnipotent. Because if he is omnipotent, not only he doesn't give a damn but I really suspect he is absolutely sadistic, cruel and totally narcissist!!
Anyways, he can cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, master and creator of all things without being either sadistic, cruel, narcissist, indifferent, certainly not loving or all of this together!!
In order for "God" to be omniscient, omnipotent, etc. then he would be a paradox. An omniscient being should be able to do anything. The old can God create a rock even he can't lift. Can God render himself never God, never omniscient or omnipotent etc. If God is omniscient then he knows one any person will do ergo the outcome is already determined, fate. This creates a problem with the idea of free will because free will is supposed to be about making ones own choices. If an outcome is already fixed then one's choice has already been determined.
In order for "God" to be omniscient, omnipotent, etc. then he would be a paradox. An omniscient being should be able to do anything. The old can God create a rock even he can't lift.
Well put, and absolutely true. You quickly learn that religious people are mentally ill when you make reasoned arguments like this and then read their responses.
I wont say "HE" cannot, I am saying "HE" IS NOT. "HE" does nothing to stop disease, nothing to stop war, nothing to "straighten out" the confusion between religions, nothing to stop evil, nothing to stop cruelty, NOTHING! A "master" would at least show HE/SHE/ ITSELF often enough to BE what he is claimed to BE! To DO SOMETHING to make "It's" presents known! When I see it I'll believe it! Until then, science is the "creator" .... at least the explanation OF creation! I take mythology as what it seems to be, I'll take the Bible as what it seems to be ... a part of mythology. Allah to Zeus, mythology until I see at least an act of a "god" that can't be denied. I'm waiting, but, at 80, time is running out. I'm not holding my breath, it's been over 2000 years since "IT" has (allegedly) shown a possible "contact" with humanity, VERY allegedly. Even when I was young I couldn't hold my breath that long!
I wont say "HE" cannot, I am saying "HE" IS NOT. "HE" does nothing to stop disease, nothing to stop war, nothing to "straighten out" the confusion between religions, nothing to stop evil, nothing to stop cruelty, NOTHING!
Neither do you. And you're the one he's waiting on to do something. We humans told him to butt out. He said, okay, then show me what you got. We didn't have anything. Humans keep demanding he do something, while doing nothing themselves and even feeding the problems. And besides, offering us an emotional appeal over an intellectual appeal is disgusting.
So . . . lets go through this logically and with reason
p1 - you claim - Neither do you.
p1.1 - your response to someone claiming god doesn't stop evil and your response 'neither do you" is nonsense and non-sensicle. You don’t know if the individual your questioning opposes war and violence, what they do off line, who they vote for, where they donate time or money. so saying "na na na bo bo, you too." is not a reasonable or logical claim or argument. Rather then disprove the claim you attack the claimant.
p1.1b - I’m a parent, if i let my kids stab each other in the street and do nothing to stop it a I’m a rather crappy parent. If your god (you have yet to define reasonably or demonstrate exists) were to let people kill each other and does nothing to stop it, hes a rather crappy god.
P2 – your claim - And you're the one he's waiting on to do something.
P2.1 – whose the Shepard in your world view? Either he has some responbility for the world or he doesn’t. And again how do you know that the poster (or others) are not actually trying to make the world a better place?
P3 - We humans told him to butt out. He said, okay, then show me what you got.
P3.1 – I don’t know where you got this information. How did you find this out and where is your evidence for this?
P4 – you claim - We didn't have anything. Humans keep demanding he do something, while doing nothing themselves and even feeding the problems.
P4.1 – We have things, including ideas and language and other things. So I don’t know why you are making this obvious false claim. I’m not asking god to do anything, I’m asking your to demonstrate what you’re saying it true. I volunteer for batter women in court, I worked for a soup kitchen and suicide line, I work at a job where I assist other people and occasionally save lives and make life better for others. I don’t see your absolutisms a valid argument. I alone in my existence shows that statement false. OR . . . I completely don’t understand what your talking about.
P5 – you claim - And besides, offering us an emotional appeal over an intellectual appeal is disgusting.
The atheist claim that people in Utopia do not understand true love or empathy, and then using the argument that God shouldn't allow a distopian world is about as bad of an argument as there is.
p1.1b - I’m a parent, if i let my kids stab each other in the street and do nothing to stop it a I’m a rather crappy parent. If your god (you have yet to define reasonably or demonstrate exists) were to let people kill each other and does nothing to stop it, hes a rather crappy god.
If life is eternal to God, your death would be meaningless to him. He would simply give the child life back in the middle of the street if he so willed, or give it life after the lesson of the street. It's a poor argument.
P2 – your claim - And you're the one he's waiting on to do something.
He already knows what he would do in the situation. It's your turn to do something about everything you are bitching and whining about. So go ahead. Do something.
P2.1 – whose the Shepard in your world view? Either he has some responbility for the world or he doesn’t. And again how do you know that the poster (or others) are not actually trying to make the world a better place?
Convincing the world that life is meaningless and purposeless and that we will all simply be forgotten and of no actual consequence is not "making the world a better place". It's making the world a more depressed place.
You have no idea how God shepherds, nor any way to know how he should or shouldn't shepherd. You have no idea what he is even looking for or at. It is incalculable. And this is a poor argument.
P3.1 – I don’t know where you got this information. How did you find this out and where is your evidence for this?
If you are an Atheist, you have chosen no God. It's simple logic. You don't want him there, so he leaves you to your own. Then you bitch. It's like magic.
I volunteer for batter women in court, I worked for a soup kitchen and suicide line, I work at a job where I assist other people and occasionally save lives and make life better for others.
This is an appeal to self righteousness, which is in and of itself a sin. It is the concept that if I do enough good things, it cancels out the bad things that I ponder or have actually done. No, you've still thought and/or done them, and God would see every bad thing you have thought or done, thus your self righteousness is pointless to him. He stills sees the bad. The Christian admits the bad, rather than tell God how great they are, which is futile.
I don’t see your absolutisms a valid argument. I alone in my existence shows that statement false.
Okay, now tell us every bad thing you have ever done or thought about doing, and then tell us if you were punished for every one of those things. Then tell us if it is fair that you "got away with it".
"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector.
I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."
Nonsensical random bs is meaningless white noise to me. Good luck with dying and no after life. Good luck with no objective meaning. Like the other atheists I have debated, don't come to me whining when prozak is your only way to get through the day.
p1 - Nonsensical random bs is meaningless white noise to me.
p1.1 - but you chose to respond without addressing any concern or objection i raise.
p1.2 - rather than address the issue you keep claiming unfounded things and personal insults, obviously thinking rational individual who can poke holes in your belief system bothers you.
p2 - Good luck with dying and no after life.
p2.1 - All things die. And you have yet to define your after life, demonstrate it exist or the rules to gain every lasting life.
P3 - Good luck with no objective meaning.
P3.1 – your appealing to god for objective morality means you have no objective morality either. God was for rape, murder, geonice and slavery, multiple wives and raped a young girl to impregnate her without permission and told her after the fact. So unless you’re going to suggest that what god degrees is moral as default you’re not objective in your standards also.
P3.2 – If there is a objective moral standard, which people have violated all through time including those serving god, shows that belief in god does not mean getting to objective standards right.
P3.3 - Can you define and demonstrate your objective meaning. If not, then how do you know it exists by anything other than faith, which is not a pathway to truth?
P4 - Like the other atheists I have debated, don't come to me whining when prozak is your only way to get through the day.
P4.1 - that’s a cowards argument, and its not even an argument. That’s the intellectual equivalent of “if you don’t believe in fairies, you’re going to be sorry when you house burns down.”
P4.2 – Can you define how other athiest and I are alike.
p2.1 - All things die. And you have yet to define your after life, demonstrate it exist or the rules to gain every lasting life.
I don't have to. I already believe. It's your mental health. Newsflash, as you get older Atheism isn't a really good position to keep your sanity with. I've seen the crash and burn a million times. If you want to play with Pandora's box, have at it. You can't say I didn't warn you.
So what. Its completely ignorant and stupid to use "I believe." or "I already believe". Anyone could say "I already believe." on any subject, it doesn't mean there right. BOB could believe its ok to sexually assault women and the world is flat.
p2 - It's your mental health. Newsflash, as you get older Atheism isn't a really good position to keep your sanity with. I've seen the crash and burn a million times. If you want to play with Pandora's box, have at it. You can't say I didn't warn you.
p2.1 - so what your saying is, that if i dont believe what you believe im goign to feel bad? Even though i have no rational reason to.
p2.2 - You didn't say i was going to hell. Much better then others.
Can you define your god in a rational way or demonstrate it exists. Because i keep asking and you fail to step up as in peter 3:15. Because at this point, it seems kind of cowardly to not actually give a definition. Does your god approve of slavery, does he believe in sexual assault for war victors, did he sexually molest a young girl to hae a child without her position. Is this your god of the bible. Cause if you keep stating your god without defining him im going to keep pointing this inconsistencies with a moral behavior.
P3.1 – your appealing to god for objective morality means you have no objective morality either.
Sure I do. God gave us moral commands. Those commands were for us, who are under him. He has omniscient morality, meaning he always knows whether the ends justify the means on every variable of every equation. Knowing whether any single act he makes is "moral" is incalculable because we have no idea what all he is looking at.
The Canaanites were literally sacrificing their babies and children to the devil by cooking them alive on an idol hot plate. If God hadn't stopped them, then that would be your argument. Why didn't he stop them?
Slavery
It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated. It never commands slavery. (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1)
multiple wives
If this is your claim, explain to us why it is objectively immoral.
and raped a young girl to impregnate her without permission
There was no sexual act, and if there had been, you'd need to show us why God can or cannot have sex "morally".
So unless you’re going to suggest that what god degrees is moral as default you’re not objective in your standards also.
Any definition of morality that you can come up with would be subjective. The version of "morality" that God adheres to would be the one that he himself accepts, not yours. I could take a Liberal atheist and a Conservative atheist, and they could never agree on what is "moral" on certain issues. The point that you are making is a blind hail mary in the dark. If God didn't fit your version of "moral", it might mean that he simply sees you as immoral from his point of view.
Finally, the word "moral" is never used in the Bible. It's a bs word that could be used to mean anything.
two. . . they do not let popcorn in the operation room. How can i possibly watch anything without popcorn.
three. . . . God flooded the world till rid the world of sin, either he is a weak ass god who can't stop sin (cause were still sinners) or your holy book is more hole ridden then holy.
Sin will come to an end but until the final day of this life, God gives us the free will to be inhuman fools. Some barbaric monsters even support dismembering late term viable babies when voting for Democrats.
Would you rather spend the last of your self love years having your minds controlled like robots?
You can choose to care for all of our most innocent lives, or you can choose to only help the little ones you allow to live.
As the Bible says, your so called goodness is like rags. Spare us your patting yourself on the back as if you actually care for others.
You brag how you help in a food kitchen, work a job where you assist others and make life better for others, etc.
YOU SUPPORT NO RESTRICTION ABORTIONS OF VIABLE BABIES FOR ANY REASON UP TO BIRTH WHEN YOU VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY!
Can you be in any more denial of who you truly are inside? I will bet you that most dictators through out the ages did some good works for the people they liked. But they still supported brutality to the most defenseless.
Now I want you to do what all phoney Pro choicers do, and tell us all about zygotes and Life of mother abortions, while you support killing late term viable babies for ANY REASON, with your vote.
The day you tell me you are truly prolife, I might give you some respect for supposedly being a good person.
Why don't you go down to some abortion clinics and watch them kill viable babies, because this is what you support.
Why don't you kill yourself to meet your god, because that is what you believe.
Ah, stain, you can create any number of accounts - the way you are an idiot and can't help feeling uncomfortable against me is decisive in spotting you. I see that you're at it again.
Not really toying... I have enough evidence to conclude that he's the same as stain. Stain is probably too scared of me, and the discomfort is leaking from his other account(s) as well... he's a terrible actor. Just to confirm, I sent a message to From saying that I kinda like him as he's very detailed and a major poster of debates when stain was stubborn on not reading anything I say. That, apparently, went ignored. Both are showing too similar patterns of discomfort against me, even though I had little correspondence with maggot during that time (he's prebanned me and all).
It probably couldn't get more overwhelming as evidence. He's gone too far to prevent being toyed with.
Yes they're one and the same , I'm banned from all foam within debates because he's terrified of the qusetions I ask and cannot defend himself as he's a coward , his other persona behaves exactly the same was which confirms your assessment that they are the one person , another persona and it would be a trinity 🙀
You really think I can be affected by you believing that?
Ah, chimp, you're far too excitable to ever do anything. It's too predictable - there's no way you can ever win people over like you attempted to claim. I'd recommend you still try, to have a taste of how terribly you fall short.
Didn't think you'd be so offended by reading that your intellect is comparable to stain... you adore him, after all. But, I'll let the two of you settle it by yourselves (not like stain would appreciate me joining in anyway).
Can't believe
I don't mind you tearing off your eyes if you can't trust them.
you practically beg for recognition on CD.
Your skill at lying is similar to stain. It's quite pathetic you expected to know anything by analysing my words.
Poor Jeff is rather similar to Jesus in that he's as you correctly stated a zombie , Stain and Jeff have the combined intellect of a jellyfish and that's being generous
You fall into every trap like the dumb brute you are ..........
… "Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest 'He knows', then it necessarily follows that man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand he would act, otherwise God's knowledge would be imperfect.…"
When do atheists ' complain ' about free will ?
You claim atheists are stupid yet you demonstrate how incredibly dense you are with every word you type .
Free will is going totally against God being omniscient. If he knows all possible output to everyone choice, he really is thirsty for blood!! Look at the word! Do you trust a God that claims he knows everything and can do anything, and let's us fuck up the world?
Not very wise the loving God or utterly cruel and enjoying the show!!
Free will is going totally against God being omniscient. If he knows all possible output to everyone choice, he really is thirsty for blood!! Look at the word! Do you trust a God that claims he knows everything and can do anything, and let's us fuck up the world?
Not very wise the loving God or utterly cruel and enjoying the show!!
Freewill is not against God being omniscient it actually affirms it.
If God knows and he allows it whether in his favour or not, then there is freewill.
But if God doesn't know while it happens, you cannot prove if there is freewill or not since you don't know what action he would take had he known it either to stop it or allow it.
"Do you trust a God that claims he knows everything and can do anything, and let's us fuck up the world?"
That's a definition of freewill.
No interference. The world is yours.
Do it good or bad(as much as he as may not like it) .
At the end, He will select his good people to his home and let the opposition also take his bad ass people to his home. Fair deal.
If he knows all possible output to everyone choice, he really is thirsty for blood!!
err. if you were told not to do something or go somewhere because "Gods saids so".
would you listen?
Every daily action to take is in the bible, you never listen. A book will always be how you treat it. If you take it as a fairy tale, so will it be, if you take it as a book of instructions then it will guide you. He knows ahead so he wrote ahead.
Take it as earth is your home, you go to a new planet Mars with a guide book ,your mission is the book, then you throw the book away, destroy your mediums of communication and start living how you want , exploring the planet with no precautions while there are several dangers surrounding you you may not realise, what outcome do you expect?
That is also freewill at your own peurile.
It the same here on earth. The body is the space suit, your soul has a mission here.....while you enjoy the lust of the flesh without taking guide for your soul, you're on your own mission now(freewill) and God has nothing to do with that.
He is still available to listen to you if you seek guidance for your soul(His only interest).
If you wake without praying for God's guidance,as you set out, you're on your own mission and if you ever escape any danger, then it is favour not because you deserved it. He is only hoping you get back to your senses.
Even losing His guidance alone is not much of a problem as to having to face the daily traps set by the opposition for those with no guidance.
Not very wise the loving God or utterly cruel and enjoying the show!!
We run the show(freewill), why do blame the spectator(as you perceive him to be).
Your argument is full of holes. Let's start with the beginning.
Freewill cannot confirm omniscience since God already knows all the outputs. How can it be free will then, if he already know what will happen??? It means that it is already written in stones. If there is indeed free will, your God cannot be omniscient as free will cannot be written in stone.
Second, if God knows in advance what will happen and still let it happen, he cannot possibly be a loving God!!
Let's say, you have a child, and you know that if you child crosses the street he or she will get hit by a car, would you let your child go out in the name of free will? Well, if you love your child I suppose you won't...
Then you say he selects his good people which make no sense at all if he already knows everything, therefore he will know before they are even born who will be good or bad... Or maybe he is not omniscient after all...
And if he knows, he, with the complicity of Satan who he has created as well (knowingly, since he knew in advance that one of his angels would turn against him), created a place for the bad souls called hell!! Charming place for a loving God who knew in advance which of his souls, that he created himself, would end up there.
I really can feel the love of your God here!!
And I forgot to mention the children, still innocent, who get killed from child abuse, rapists, pedophiles. And of course, all that under the watchful eyes of your loving God...
Thank you for your post. I hope the day finds you well and good and you had some questions so I will attempt to answer them. So . . . .
P1 – you claim - Perhaps if God stops war he is interfering in free will right?
P1.1 It depends, can you define freewill? I think the term is silly and non-sensicle and even irrational. But as my definition will probably differ then yours I would need to know how you use it vs I use it and see if we can find common ground, or how you use it so I can answer your question.
P2 – you claim - Interfering in everything portray us slaves and we live without our own choices (politics, career, emotional etc.) but how he solely wants it.
P2.1 as opposed to you better believe in me or rot in hell. If my existence for most of time is one of an infinite amount of torture, how is he not interfering? He made the rules for going to hell then set up a universe where I require reasonble and rational beliefs, how is that not interference?
P3 –you claim - It's pathetic when you atheists complain about freewill and God being ignorant at the same time.
P3.1 How so? What specifically is pathetic about it?
P4 – you claim – What do you want?
P4.1 – a lot of things. However when discussing god with theist. I want a rational definition of god, a demonstration or rational argument for that god and not necessary but it would be nice after presenting no rational reason to believe in god they admit it.
P5 – you claim - God should give me freedom to go clubbing. God said ok.You go to the club, engage in a fight, get shot and you blame God for making it happen?
P5.1 – that is a ridicules claim and straw man. You went to a club, you engaged in a fight. You god shot. Unless you were going to kill someone and the person who shoot you was acting in self defense or defense of another, the person who shot you is to blame. If your going to construct an argument over freewill and accountability, and this is your best argument your position that “I” am being “stupid” is not reasonable or rational.
P5.2 - The main argument I hear from atheist is ‘its irrational for god to give me choice based on no evidence (or lack of evidence) and then punish me for eternity for being sceptical about his existence when it’s the rational reasonable choice” I don’t think that is stupid, do you?
P6 – you claim - Stupid atheists.
P6.1 – that is claim that requires a demonstration of proof and definition. Are you referring to the position, the unique individual atheist as a whole or just cherry picking some of them? Are they stupid compared to other non-atheists? You are being unclear, perhaps if you explain yourself better I might agree or at least be able to test your claim.
Peter 3:15 – you are required by the bible to give reasons for your faith in civil discourse. Is name calling really something your bible supports?
I thought you said you were answering them but there seem to be a lot of questions in there.
Don't know if i should take it all as straight answers and just go ahead to rate you; bravo, poor, good, 7/10.
You have a very wrong perception and approach towards this debate environment. We be realistic here not some win debate for national trophy so no matter what even if you see the truth that you're wrong you try refuting no matter how weak you may sound.....the never give up ,die hard........ probably get noticed and promoted by your superiors(who have failed miserably here with these same questions you bring on here)...........
To tell you....don't feel smart because you're atheist.....it's actually the opposite when you believe there can be long lasting constant order , patterns,Principles and designs without a mind behind it simply implying nothing has purpose when these natural phenomenon prove their purpose each and everyday in conforment with our life needs and beyond in other needs which affects the universe as a whole.
That mind is who i call God.And there is only one as far as i know at least for this universe(if there are others).
If there were two or more(ex. superpowers China, Russia, USA, Japan , North Korea(not necessarily but in ammunition)) there would be competition, conflict,choas and random change in principles as among their creations as each will be trying to prove a point(i am the best). Apparently, that is not the case right?