The Passion

[Legion]

Can God create a rock that even he cant... sigh guys will some of you ever get over this simplistic reasoning. First of all having precognition doesnt mean having unlimited precognition. Its easy to foresee from mechanisms its another to see the destiny of free willed beings.

SImplistic reasoning? Sorry our logic does not meant the standard of your convoluted reasoning you use to defend your religion. If you so perceive that matters such as Jesus' lineage mean nothing in the scope of chrisitianity you are highly mistaken.

Jesus was foretold (as a savior) to come from the line of David. No such line can be established as Luke and Matthews lineages do not match. That is to say they come from the same father, but that father has two family lines they try and trace. They can't seem to agree who Jesus' grandfather is

God as being omnipotent hasnt been described in the bible. And only a few fundies have ignorantly described him as that.

I think a rather sound argument can be made God infact does claim to know all and see all. The simple refusal to igknowledge this seems to be a means by which to create a defense against the implications of predeterminism.

Its not necessary to leave logic behind in order to concieve of a supreme being.

Correct, i could believe in a 26th Dimensional Cream Puff full of vanila goodness if i so wanted.

A supreme being as far as we can understand one is one that can logically be arrived at in terms of what can be defined in his qualities, abilities and nature.

Interesting, you can't understand it but you want to have a relationship with it.

The biggest hurdle still facing xtians is in properly defining god.

I believe that the bible itself does a good job at this...

 

[V3]

Jesus was foretold (as a savior) to come from the line of David. No such line can be established as Luke and Matthews lineages do not match. That is to say they come from the same father, but that father has two family lines they try and trace. They can't seem to agree who Jesus' grandfather is

Want to try that again ?

 

[FUDie]

A perpetual motion machine, to extract energy from, might be feasible, one way could be by exploiting the temporary reversal of entropy that occurs at small scales, or maybe using negative stuff... maybe or maybe not... anyway, I believe most laws can be bent to the point that they're basically broken... but it wont be easy...

Could the universe qualify as such? I mean it keeps going and going, even after all mass decays, will it ever stop? That is has anything been said about what will happen eventually? Will it reach a point of inertness? Not even the vacuum of space is inert, from what I've heard... so...

It will never be completely inert because there will be leftover energy from decaying matter (E = mc^2). If the universe keeps expanding (and it appears to be doing so... accelerating even), eventually all energy will be spread so thin that it would be undetectable (of course, there wouldn't be any detectors around either ).

My personal belief is that our universe is cyclic, transitioning between an expanded state (like now) that starts with a "big bang" and a single point mass (like just before the current big bang). I don't know how the next contraction will start... Things could start to change in a trillion years, who knows? Or maybe things are already changing but we can't see it because it takes so long for the information to reach us.

Where could the mass/energy from the big bang have come from? It must always have been here, IMO, as it's not possible to create something from nothing (good ol' E = mc^2 again).

But there's no way to for us to ever really know what happened before the big bang since that's when time (for us/our universe) began.

-FUDie

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Where could the mass/energy from the big bang have come from? It must always have been here, IMO, as it's not possible to create something from nothing (good ol' E = mc^2 again).

I try to stay out of these "theism" debates, and I'm not singling you out for any particular reason other than to make a related point:

You just causally asserted your opinion that "matter has always been there."

What if someone were to assert "God has just always been there?"

 

[Sxotty]

I never quite understood what's so bad about killing Jesus. I mean, according to Xian mythology the dude was supposed to die for our sins, no?

I don't know if you meant this as a joke or not, but for some reason I find this statement profoundly hysterical in its truthfulness.

The thing is christ was killed for political motivations, not religious ones. The people that killed him did it for finicial gain and power. Thus they were "bad" that is a bad thing.

If christ was supposed to die to offer us redemption for our sins, nothing said they had to kill him, he could just have a heart attack...But if it took awhile to suffer for them then he could still do it, the question of whether that was "how" it was "supposed" to happen is unknowable, the question of whether killing someone who is innocent b/c you think they might remove some of your political power is bad, is answerable.

 

[Sxotty]

On the predestination argument here is my theory.


God knows what we will do, or he knows the odds at least. If you think that jesus was like god and had foreknowledge then look at Matthew 7:10... now

When Jesus heard it he marvelled, and said to them that followed...

Now if you hold that he had preknowledge then how would he have marvelled. So either he doesn'/didn't or only knows the odds of a given choice in advance,

OR

God knows what we will do, but lets us do it b/c then we can't complain later and say, naw I wouldn't have done that... Thus life could be considered a place for us to get to know ourselves and not a test.

 

[FUDie]

Where could the mass/energy from the big bang have come from? It must always have been here, IMO, as it's not possible to create something from nothing (good ol' E = mc^2 again).

I try to stay out of these "theism" debates, and I'm not singling you out for any particular reason other than to make a related point:

You just causally asserted your opinion that "matter has always been there."

What if someone were to assert "God has just always been there?"

If god were outside time, then I guess that would be possible. However, it's easy for me to pick up some matter (like a book) but I can't as easily say, "There's a piece of god." Of course, Christians say that "god is everywhere" but I think that's a cop-out (space is everywhere too!).

A math professor of mine was a devout Christian. He taught topology and saw that as a way that god could exist. Let me explain:
- Picture flatland (a 2D world) being a model of our own universe
- If you're a 3D object, then you are outside the 2D world
- Thus a 3D object could observe everything within the 2D world

Of course, the "observing" would be tricky (you can't use light from our universe as that stays within our universe), but I think you can grasp the idea. My response was that a 3D surgeon could make a lot of money: You could remove tumors without making any incisisions! Of course, I don't know how you'd spend 2D money in a 3D world...

-FUDie

 

[MfA]

You just causally asserted your opinion that "matter has always been there."

What if someone were to assert "God has just always been there?"

Matter has a slight advantage over god, it's here now.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Matter has a slight advantage over god, it's here now.

Or are you just a (matter less) brain, in a (matter less) vat?

 

[zidane1strife]

My personal belief is that our universe is cyclic, transitioning between an expanded state (like now) that starts with a "big bang" and a single point mass (like just before the current big bang). I don't know how the next contraction will start... Things could start to change in a trillion years, who knows? Or maybe things are already changing but we can't see it because it takes so long for the information to reach us.

Hmmm, OP computer might be possible in such a scenario... Anyway, I too believe there is a possibility that the universe might stop expanding and begin contracting.

As for perpetual machinery, I think some biological organisms might be using a form of semi-perpetual machinery to achieve more than might be normally possible, bending the law a little... or maybe not...

God knows what we will do, but lets us do it b/c then we can't complain later and say, naw I wouldn't have done that... Thus life could be considered a place for us to get to know ourselves and not a test.

How about all possible outcomes take place, and God knows and is present in all of them.

 

[FUDie]

As for perpetual machinery, I think some biological organisms might be using a form of semi-perpetual machinery to achieve more than might be normally possible, bending the law a little... or maybe not...

I sincerely doubt it (perpetual machinery). However, note that there are sources of energy all around us and it's possible that it could be harnessed in a unusual fasion.

God knows what we will do, but lets us do it b/c then we can't complain later and say, naw I wouldn't have done that... Thus life could be considered a place for us to get to know ourselves and not a test.

How about all possible outcomes take place, and God knows and is present in all of them.

Sounds like another cop-out to me. How about god is present in none of them? Just as valid and unproveable.

-FUDie

 

[pax]

Lineage? After 1000 years you could probably link half of Israel to David... Ever done your own genealogy back 1000 years? Uncle of mine went back 700 and we linked to famous figures that the genealogist said half of all frenchmen linked back to...

But I digress. I dont care about lineage or miracles. I largely accept the message tho. Judaism which gave rise to 90% of xtian theology is solidly and logically built. It does have serious hellensitic influences some good some not so good but in the whole I accept largely the construct that has come about to try and explain our place in the universe from a meaningful, supernatural, spiritual standpoint..

The bible does a good job indeed at establishing who and what god is. Its the interpretation by many if not most xtians that is at fault.

 

[zidane1strife]

I sincerely doubt it (perpetual machinery). However, note that there are sources of energy all around us and it's possible that it could be harnessed in a unusual fasion.

From what I've heard, some proteins are designed with temporary entropy reversal in mind, and they exploit this in their function. Now do these use less energy than normally possible, that is do they gain something from these events, or do they not... I dunno I've not looked into it.

Sounds like another cop-out to me. How about god is present in none of them? Just as valid and unproveable.

Well, yeah. It's just an example of how someone could foresee something without necessarily involving predestination.

 

[epicstruggle]

ok hope this doesnt offend anyone. I thought it was funny. Possible sequel title for passion:

The Passion of the christ II: He wont be crossed again.



later,
epic

 

[Snyder]

This thread scares me. Legion and L233 agreeing with each other...THE END IS NIGH!

 

[digitalwanderer]

I don't see why they made a movie about it. Not only is it predictable but it's been done to death!!!

 

[StealthHawk]

Hogwash. Predestination precludes free will.

I think Legion has a point here. Precognition is the same thing as predestination. There can be no free will when there is an omniscient entity. If there was an omniscient entity when I make a decision then my decision will always be predetermined by the foreknowledge of the omniscient being. I can't decide one way or another, I will walk the path predetermined by foreknowledge. All I have is the illusion of making a decision.

And what would the significance of that be? What real distinction is there between an illusory choice you make yourself even if there is no "real alternative" and a choice you make yourself when there is an actual alternative? It's not like God is there holding a gun to your head making you choose Path A. You ultimately take Path A because you decided to, albeit there was no chance you would take Path B.

I'm with David Hume on this, free will is any choice that springs from your character. Not having free will is having a choice forced on you via some external variable and making you take an action that doesn't reflect your character. You might not have free will in the sense that there is no "real" choice, but the actuality is that whether or not God exists, you would have made the same choices anyway.

 

[L233]

This thread scares me. Legion and L233 agreeing with each other...THE END IS NIGH!

As a pinko I am supposed to be an atheist. I don't know what's Legion's excuse though.

 

[L233]

And what would the significance of that be? What real distinction is there between an illusory choice you make yourself even if there is no "real alternative" and a choice you make yourself when there is an actual alternative?

Easy. In the first instance you actually make a choice, in the second you don't. You simply believe you made one. You can't "make" an illusionary decision. If you could "make" it then it would just be a decision and there would be nothing illusionary about it.

 

[StealthHawk]

Easy. In the first instance you actually make a choice, in the second you don't. You simply believe you made one. You can't "make" an illusionary decision. If you could "make" it then it would just be a decision and there would be nothing illusionary about it.

But in this case you don't actually know that you haven't really made a decision As I've admitted, there is a difference, but I don't see it being significant. The distinction is academic at best and has no repercussions.

As an aside, how can one ever know if you really have free will(using your definition)? The answer is that you can't. Every single decision you have to make can be an illusionary decision and you would never be able to prove otherwise. Moreover, it wouldn't matter if all the decisions were illusionary or not, you'd still have to live the same either way.

You've described the difference between an illusionary decision and a real decision. But you still haven't outlined why the difference between these two is significant.

I don't see any practical difference between an illusionary decision and a "real" one. Because, as I said before, you would make the same choice regardless. You are not being coerced by God into doing anything you don't want to do. Nor are you being prodded in a single direction. The choices you make are your own. If I'm standing on a cliff, I can either jump off the cliff or not jump off the cliff. Let's say that the Christian God is real and exists. I choose not to jump off the cliff. Now let's say that there is no God and he was just made up. I choose not to jump off the cliff. I went through the exact same decision making process in each scenario and arrived at exactly the same conclusion. God existing or not existing had nor bearing on whether I would jump off the cliff.