Thread: Calvinism idea of Predestination.

You're right, which is why your standard is silly and doesn't apply to God. I'm using the word in the real sense, while you're using it as a punch line.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

You realize that your edit time stamps are displayed for all to see?

Yes. I edit my posts, frequently.
You got me.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You're right, which is why your standard is silly and doesn't apply to God. I'm using the word in the real sense, while you're using it as a punch line.

My standard is not my own, it's the freaking dictionary definition.

om·nip·o·tent
noun /ämˈnipətənt/ 
omnipotents, plural

God

adjective /ämˈnipətənt/ 

(of a deity) Having unlimited power; able to do anything

Having ultimate power and influence
- an omnipotent sovereign

Either you god is that ^ or he is not omnipotent.

Originally Posted by sloth

Yes. I edit my posts, frequently.
You got me.

After they've been replied to... and then you feign ignorance... dirty trick.

No. No tricks. First of all, anyone who was watching the post at that time could tell you exactly the edits that I made, and they were all variations of the final post. I invite any honest person who witnessed it to testify as to what they saw.
I was trying to figure out why he was even whining, seeing as how I hadn't started any shit with him or anyone else, so I was kind of speechless.
Second, regardless of what my original post might have been, all four of his points are classic invalid logical fallacies. Even if I had changed my mind dramatically about what I was trying to say, he still would not have proven anything with those ... points. You know it, too.
Third, his third point was "God doesn't exist." and I have never, that I remember, stated that I believe in God. I have spoken of him. I have spoken of "the deity". Several times I have stated that I don't BELIEVE anything. I don't think he was talking to me, and if he was, that's even more hilarious.
And finally: Fxxxing what do you care?

Now I'm editing this post. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Calvinism is a false doctrine to me. I made that pretty obvious, I wasn't stating otherwise. Also the idea of Calvinism is incompatible with God period.

So please GTFO until you have some kind of evidence for why God exists other than scripture. Unless you have physical evidence no one's gonna change their mind.

We don't need to derail every single thread to debate issues that can't be proven.

Seriously people, off topic much?

Originally Posted by stonedape

Seriously people, off topic much?

*snicker*

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

God has created our space-time dimension and therefore by definition would not be constrained by it's linear dimension constraints as we are.

Any yet the fact that we are and that we live in only one existence and not every possible existence is not a consideration? For that matter, this god seems to not even be capable of preempting very obvious truths nor recognizing them when they come to pass. Truths such as he is largely ineffective at getting people to realize what the "right" choices are. No one can seem to quite agree what they should be and in fact things start working a lot better when we stop worrying about what we think god wants us to do and start focusing on what actually works for us.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

When thinking this way the subsequent event is scientifically possible.

Right, yeah, except it's not. Any deviation from what we have would require either different rules for the universe to operate under or a different configuration of the universe in the first place in order to cause a different event. Since our existence can't be different from itself this really makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Your theory is trumped by Scripture.

My reason trumps your scripture.

Originally Posted by siuol

i guess an omnipotent being could bend logic and reality, but i see that as cheating =P

The only ones bending logic and reality are the religious types who are trying to comb scripture over their patches of missing logic.

Originally Posted by stonedape

So please GTFO until you have some kind of evidence for why God exists other than scripture. Unless you have physical evidence no one's gonna change their mind.

Tall order.

Originally Posted by sloth

No. No tricks. First of all, anyone who was watching the post at that time could tell you exactly the edits that I made, and they were all variations of the final post. I invite any honest person who witnessed it to testify as to what they saw.
I was trying to figure out why he was even whining, seeing as how I hadn't started any shit with him or anyone else, so I was kind of speechless.
Second, regardless of what my original post might have been, all four of his points are classic invalid logical fallacies. Even if I had changed my mind dramatically about what I was trying to say, he still would not have proven anything with those ... points. You know it, too.
Third, his third point was "God doesn't exist." and I have never, that I remember, stated that I believe in God. I have spoken of him. I have spoken of "the deity". Several times I have stated that I don't BELIEVE anything. I don't think he was talking to me, and if he was, that's even more hilarious.
And finally: Fxxxing what do you care?

Now I'm editing this post. Sorry.

I did see your original post. It was something along the lines of "You are being petty and bickering, I am the most sensible person in this thread" (obviously an attempt to mock DuB's previous post).

DuB followed that up with an equally sarcastic post after which you edited your previous post into a more "serious" rant about you being victimized, and then replied once more as if you had no idea what DuB was talking about.

So far I'm the closest thing to omniscient in this thread.

Also read over your posts before submitting them, not after.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I did see your original post. It was something along the lines of "You are being petty and bickering, I am the most sensible person in this thread" (obviously an attempt to mock DuB's previous post).

DuB followed that up with an equally sarcastic post after which you edited your previous post into a more "serious" rant about you being victimized, and then replied once more as if you had no idea what DuB was talking about.

So far I'm the closest thing to omniscient in this thread.

Also read over your posts before submitting them, not after.

Oh! I sincerely didn't notice that he posted before I edited my post, so it all didn't make sense to me.
Even if I'm lying, big damn deal.
And yes, I did rant about his crap, because I didn't start anything with anyone.

I'm glad we spent the time to get this all straightened out. I'm sure everyone else is, too.
I will try to consider your wishes when writing my posts in the future.
*edits his post*

Originally Posted by sloth

Oh! I sincerely didn't notice that he posted before I edited my post, so it all didn't make sense to me.
Even if I'm lying, big damn deal.
And yes, I did rant about his crap, because I didn't start anything with anyone.

I'm glad we spent the time to get this all straightened out. I'm sure everyone else is, too.
I will try to consider your wishes when writing my posts in the future.
*edits his post*

Are you seriously concerned about off-topic posts? A quick examination of the first page will reveal that the first three replies (including mine) directly address the OP's question. The fourth reply, yours, consisted of "predictions" for the course of the thread and a statement that you would not actually take a crack at the OP's question. This would be the first off-topic post of the thread (by the way you still have about 7 hours to go edit it...)

In fact, you have a total of seven posts in this thread, and not a single one is on topic.

Thank you for your contributions, Sloth.

Hmm..
I guess you're right.
Damn it.

I've been having a hard time with these threads lately. I post at work, and I only have time to glance at the threads before I post. I've had a few bonehead moves in a row, now. It's actually getting to me, which is making my posts even stupider, I think.
Sorry for breaking the thread.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

My standard is not my own, it's the freaking dictionary definition.

My dictionary doesn't say "able to do anything"

omnipotent

Entry from World dictionary

Pronunciation:/ɒmˈnɪpət(ə)nt/
adjective
(of a deity) having unlimited power.
having great power and influence:
an omnipotent sovereign.

Your definition of omnipotent is not in accordance with God. Mine on the other hand is.

Originally Posted by stonedape

So please GTFO until you have some kind of evidence for why God exists other than scripture. Unless you have physical evidence no one's gonna change their mind.

Dude, you seem distraught. That being said, I guess you and I are done then. Best regards.

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

Any yet the fact that we are and that we live in only one existence and not every possible existence is not a consideration?

I don't see how you could possibly miss this. Every possible existence does exist and you have ultimately experienced them all from God's perspective. The basis of my entire argument can be boiled down to this concept. You just do not directly experience every possible existence because the others are hidden and revealed once you choose it.

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

For that matter, this god seems to not even be capable of preempting very obvious truths nor recognizing them when they come to pass. Truths such as he is largely ineffective at getting people to realize what the "right" choices are. No one can seem to quite agree what they should be and in fact things start working a lot better when we stop worrying about what we think god wants us to do and start focusing on what actually works for us.

The choice is simple, you either believe in God or you don't. I chose belief you chose disbelief. The last part of your sentence is opinionated.

Originally Posted by Mark

Right, yeah, except it's not. Any deviation from what we have would require either different rules for the universe to operate under or a different configuration of the universe in the first place in order to cause a different event. Since our existence can't be different from itself this really makes no sense.

As I stated, it is scientifically possible, unless you're stating F-Theory doesn't make sense and is an impossibility. Is this really what you're telling me?

Originally Posted by Mark

My reason trumps your scripture.

So you think.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I don't see how you could possibly miss this. Every possible existence does exist and you have ultimately experienced them all from God's perspective. The basis of my entire argument can be boiled down to this concept. You just do not directly experience every possible existence because the others are hidden and revealed once you choose it.

It is important to make a distinction between possibility and actuality. Your argument on the existence of possible worlds is very similar to David Lewis' modal realism argument that states:

1) Possible worlds exist – they are just as real as our world;
2) Possible worlds are the same sort of things as our world – they differ in content, not in kind;
3) Possible worlds cannot be reduced to something more basic – they are irreducible entities in their own right.
4) Actuality is indexical. When we distinguish our world from other possible worlds by claiming that it alone is actual, we mean only that it is our world.
5) Possible worlds are unified by the spatiotemporal interrelations of their parts; every world is spatiotemporally isolated from every other world.
6) Possible worlds are causally isolated from each other.

Saying possible worlds concretely exist in a similar way that actual worlds exist is an unverifiable conjecture. Consider: “5) possible worlds are spatiotemporally isolated from one another” There is no way to verify the existence of possible worlds if 5 is true. Not to mention the existence of possible worlds violates Occam’s razor because it postulates the existence of too many entities when Occam’s razor explicitly states that the addition of theoretical entities beyond what is necessary is an over complication and thus is not likely to be true. The theory creates more problems than it solves.

Example: Lets say there is a cup on the desk. In a possible world there would not be a cup on the desk. In another possible world there would be a water bottle on the desk instead of a cup. In another world there would be a clown, a shoe, a dog, a flower, etc. There would have to be an infinite number of possible worlds to account for all of the possibilities that can exist in the context of a given moment. This seems absurd and illogical to me.

Is there a possible world where Jesus did not die for mankind’s sins and everyone who is otherwise “saved” would be in hell in another possible world? If our eternal soul is indivisible, how can it be in heaven and hell in two distinct possible worlds? Do you see how this theory creates more problems than it solves?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Dude, you seem distraught. That being said, I guess you and I are done then. Best regards.

I had a fever yesterday. And I'm starting to get sick of every RS thread being you debating the strong atheists here, it's boring as hell. Do you have any evidence for the existence of God besides scripture? If not what is the point of having a debate, but whatever. I was just trying to save this thread from completely going to shit. Too late for that I guess.

I have no desire to debate the existence or non-existence of things with you, but I am interested in understanding compassion deeply from both an experiential and analytal perspective. I disagree with much of what you said but was gonna drop it since it has nothing to do with calvinism, but this thread doesn;t seem to be about that anymore.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

That's something you've made up about God. Omnipotent in the Bible as referenced to God doesn't carry those attributes that you're describing. God is All-Powerful meaning God can do everything with power that He wills to do. It does not mean He does absolutely anything. For example, God doesn't do silly i.e., create a rock so heavy that He himself cannot life it.

Yea, that's pretty obvious. He sent His only begotten son as an atonement and ransom for our sins so that we may have continued existence.

Calvinism is a false doctrine to me. I made that pretty obvious, I wasn't stating otherwise. Also the idea of Calvinism is incompatible with God period.

Let's say God did create a hell and God also created a heaven. How is His compassion limited when He gave you free will to chose which one of these places you would like to go? If anything giving you the free-will to chose to go to Heaven only magnifies His greatness and how much compassion He has for humanity.

Which supports that free will has to exist because if it doesn't then indeed, Jesus was sent for nothing and Jesus died for nothing, because we never had a choice in the first place and are thus predestined for a particular outcome. If Jesus died for nothing, then what exactly did He die for?

So it's compassionate to sentance your son to death when you could avoid the whole situation? He crucifeid the man, that's fucking sick. I know I know, we did all the bad stuff and God did all the good stuff. And somehow the situation couldn't be avoided, despite that God is omnipotent.

A compassionate man would forgive them regardless of their actions and do what would create the best possible reality to the best of their ability. If I could do miracles I would do that shit all the time. Just walk into a hospital. Broken leg, shazam, all better. There's so much suffering in this world. Either God can't prevent it or he doesn't want to(becasue clearly he isn't, if I am not eating a cookie it is either becuase I don't want a cookie or because I can't have a cookie), he either is not omnipotent(can't do it, or miracles at all, because he could easily do some and prevent many deaths by starvation that are occuring right now) or he is not compassionate(doesn't want to), this is a proof I have shown you multiple times and you have yet to show me a hole in it(because there isn't one).

Regarding hell:
Would a compassionate father say, worship me and I will give you gifts, disobey me and a I will beat you? No, he would empathize with the child and not cause it suffering. If the child were to disobey he would explain why he had a problem with that kind of behaviour, explain the cause and effect of such behaviour and try to understand why the child was disobedient.

If God truly knew how to forgive, people would not need to ask his forgiveness. If you look to Christ's teachings you will see this. Does God not know how to turn the other cheek?

It doesn't matter if he gave you the choice. If he was compassionate and the creator he would not create the possibility of eternal suffering, nor would he demand retribution or demand anything at all. Those who understand unconditional love do not harm others for any reason other than self defense. Nor do the demand things of others, the work from love in every situation, and give all they can to those they love.

Regarding omnipotence:
It doesn't matter which definition we use. Let;s use yours. You believe that God has unlimited power, correct? You also believe that God can perform miracles to multiply food, correct? So if he is compassionate, why does he not show his compassion to starving families by multiplying their food?

Put yourself in God's shoes for a moment. This would be amazing to do. You are invisible, you sneak down into some poor single mother's kitchen and multiply the black beans and rice she's making so that not only is there enough for everyone tonight for a change, but there are leftovers enough for tomorrow and the day after that. If you could do that why wouldn't you, it would be enjoyable, beautiful.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I had a fever yesterday. And I'm starting to get sick of every RS thread being you debating the strong atheists here, it's boring as hell. Do you have any evidence for the existence of God besides scripture? If not what is the point of having a debate, but whatever. I was just trying to save this thread from completely going to shit. Too late for that I guess.

You don't like me speaking about God in this R/S sub-form, easy solution, put me on ignore or better yet stay out of R/S if you don't want to hear about God. However, know this. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will stop me from posting here or speaking of God. That being said, you and I are done with our argument. Best regards

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So you think.

More than I can say about you.

The feeling is mutual.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You don't like me speaking about God in this R/S sub-form, easy solution, put me on ignore or better yet stay out of R/S if you don't want to hear about God. However, know this. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will stop me from posting here or speaking of God. That being said, you and I are done with our argument. Best regards

I'd really like to hear your reply to what I said, I put a bit of time and thought into it and I feel like it is an important issue that trancends belief or disbelief in God.

I have no problem with you talking about God, it's just annoying when someone asks a question or starts a discussion and then someone else starts a huge text-wall debate on an entirely different subject(particularly when the same people do this with the same subject matter and none of them learn anything over and over and over and over........). It's extremely arrogant. My perspective is the correct one so let me just enlighten ya'll about this God business. Despite that a completely different definition of what God is capable of in this thread. In effect you are an atheist in this thread, you don't believe in the God being discussed. But rather than state that you said that this definition is wrong and projected your own mental construction all over this thread.

You don't know, none of us do, but if we stop pretending we know things we don't we can have a discussion and maybe come closer to the truth.

As a side question, are you a gnostic or an agnostic(using the real definitions of the words). Do you believe that it is possible to know if there is a God, and if so how can one know? Through what specific means?

I admit that I don't know that there is no God, but until someone can show me a flaw in the proof below I really can't believe in any kind of compassionate patriarchal deity.

I would really like it if you or any of the other Christians here would show me the flaw in this proof(I thoroughly enjoy being proven wrong on such matters, it helps me learn):

There's so much suffering in this world. Either God can't prevent/ease it or he doesn't want to(becasue clearly he isn't, if I am not eating a cookie it is either becuase I don't want a cookie or because I can't have a cookie), he either is not omnipotent(can't do it, or miracles at all, because he could easily do some and prevent many deaths by starvation that are occuring right now) or he is not compassionate(doesn't want to), this is a proof I have shown you multiple times and you have yet to show me a hole in it(because there isn't one).

once again,

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

That being said, you and I are done with our arguments. Best regards

Why? Was I really so insulting earlier? If so why do you keep talking with mark who just told you that you don't think?

Is there a flaw in my proof, if so wouldn't it benifit us both for you to show me it? Is it so obvious that it need not be thought about? If not wouldn't it be important to look into this matter?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me there isn't one and you don't want to face that truth so you are avoiding this discussion.

I can't resist making a meta-proof here.

Either this issue is unimportant, Ne-yo doesn't love me or Ne-yo does not want to face the proof I have proposed. This issue calls into question the will of God, therefore it would be important to those who believe God's will is compassionate. Ne-yo is a christian, therefore he must embrace the ideal of unconditional love. Ne-yo loves me, therefore he would show me the flaws in my own spiritual practice and metaphysical beliefs rather than drop a conversation which he started(you quoted me first). Ne-yo loves me and is concerned with the subject matter so therefore he must not want to face the proof I have proposed.

a much weaker proof full of assertions and holes, but it was still fun. Hooray for logic.

Told you it was a tall order.

fuck my life

Originally Posted by stonedape

Why? Was I really so insulting earlier? If so why do you keep talking with mark who just told you that you don't think?

Is there a flaw in my proof, if so wouldn't it benifit us both for you to show me it? Is it so obvious that it need not be thought about? If not wouldn't it be important to look into this matter?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me there isn't one and you don't want to face that truth so you are avoiding this discussion.

I can't resist making a meta-proof here.

Either this issue is unimportant, Ne-yo doesn't love me or Ne-yo does not want to face the proof I have proposed. This issue calls into question the will of God, therefore it would be important to those who believe God's will is compassionate. Ne-yo is a christian, therefore he must embrace the ideal of unconditional love. Ne-yo loves me, therefore he would show me the flaws in my own spiritual practice and metaphysical beliefs rather than drop a conversation which he started(you quoted me first). Ne-yo loves me and is concerned with the subject matter so therefore he must not want to face the proof I have proposed.

a much weaker proof full of assertions and holes, but it was still fun. Hooray for logic.

I have no problem with having this discussion with you, if the OP is ok with us continuing our off-topic discussion here, then I'll entertain this. Or, you could create a thread and we can have at it there. However, when we do, I would prefer that our discussion is civilized. You telling me to GTFO does not answer your questions now does it? If you could agree with those terms then I'm in.