Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Documentary - Religulous [Perseus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Perseus wrote:
50+ wrote:
I'll go back to church when someone can explain free choice and a omniscient creator. That is, how can we have free choice to make our own decisions if God already knew everything we were going to do before he/it created the universe


If I ask my wife if she'd rather have sushi or go to the hole in the wall Mexican place (which is awesome) I know she'll choose sushi. That doesn't mean she doesn't have free will, it means I know her so well I know what she'll choose. Pair that idea with a God who created the universe and everyone in it. If God did all that he's very clearly infinitely superior to us so why couldn't he know what choices we'd make?


You don't know your wife's every thought, You don't know what she's going to say to you on july 5th 2022 at 4 pm. God does and did before he/it created anything.
Last edited by: 50+: Jan 17, 17 17:55
Quote Reply
Re: Documentary - Religulous [SH] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SH wrote:
veganerd wrote:
SH wrote:
It is the same thing. Existing for 0 seconds is an irrelevant question.


Existing outside of time is the same thing as existing for no time.

Not necessarily. Conceptually there may be dimensions or places or whatever not constrained by "now".

This just seems like a solipsisim type of assertion. Things sinply cannot change without time so existing without time is as useless as it is meaningless.

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: Documentary - Religulous [veganerd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Things sinply cannot change without time so existing without time is as useless as it is meaningless.

I don't think "changing" is a necessary part of the definition of God in any meaningful way. He's eternal. What makes you think he changes over time?

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Documentary - Religulous [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
Things sinply cannot change without time so existing without time is as useless as it is meaningless.

I don't think "changing" is a necessary part of the definition of God in any meaningful way. He's eternal. What makes you think he changes over time?

You misunderstand. Taking action is a change from the way things were. Change cannot happen without time.

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: Documentary - Religulous [Mike Alexander] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i saw it years ago, and remember it being sort of disappointing. i'm mostly a fan of maher's, but he too often goes in for the softballs, and religulous definitely had a lot of that. there's nothing really big or clever about picking apart the beliefs of an undereducated nobody . . . why not really dig in and ask big questions to the people in charge?

i thought the central argument about religion being fine for personal belief but crummy for making policy was a good one and wish he'd spent more time on it. as it was things jumped around, went for a few cheap laughs here and there, and then kind of limped across the finish line.

-mike

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/
Quote Reply
Re: Documentary - Religulous [iron_mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
iron_mike wrote:
i saw it years ago, and remember it being sort of disappointing. i'm mostly a fan of maher's, but he too often goes in for the softballs, and religulous definitely had a lot of that. there's nothing really big or clever about picking apart the beliefs of an undereducated nobody . . . why not really dig in and ask big questions to the people in charge?

i thought the central argument about religion being fine for personal belief but crummy for making policy was a good one and wish he'd spent more time on it. as it was things jumped around, went for a few cheap laughs here and there, and then kind of limped across the finish line.

-mike

Fairly good assessment, its how i felt about it too.

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: Documentary - Religulous [iron_mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
iron_mike wrote:
i saw it years ago, and remember it being sort of disappointing. i'm mostly a fan of maher's, but he too often goes in for the softballs, and religulous definitely had a lot of that. there's nothing really big or clever about picking apart the beliefs of an undereducated nobody . . . why not really dig in and ask big questions to the people in charge?

i thought the central argument about religion being fine for personal belief but crummy for making policy was a good one and wish he'd spent more time on it. as it was things jumped around, went for a few cheap laughs here and there, and then kind of limped across the finish line.

-mike

I quit about half way through after he was asking some broke rednecks theological questions that they couldn't answer. He was picking on people the way a child does in the school yard. I thought it was shameful. If he had legitimate question go find an apologist, a seminary trained pastor. Many Christians don't study the Bible and many atheist have a subjective world view based on their moral preferences.
Quote Reply
Re: Documentary - Religulous [Perseus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Perseus wrote:
Many Christians don't study the Bible and many atheist have a subjective world view based on their moral preferences.


It's not any more "objective" if you pick and choose the parts that you follow and the parts you ignore.

Leaving aside the fact that the Bible is not an internally consistent document that presents a unified world view or moral compass.

You put those two things together and you come up with the vast differences you can see in Christian sects. If it were "objective" everyone would come to the same conclusions and they don't.
Last edited by: ThisIsIt: Jan 18, 17 8:27
Quote Reply
Re: Documentary - Religulous [veganerd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
veganerd wrote:
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
Things sinply cannot change without time so existing without time is as useless as it is meaningless.


I don't think "changing" is a necessary part of the definition of God in any meaningful way. He's eternal. What makes you think he changes over time?


You misunderstand. Taking action is a change from the way things were. Change cannot happen without time.

Change and action include a time component within our universe. That doesn't mean the same rules apply outside of our universe.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Documentary - Religulous [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
veganerd wrote:
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
Things sinply cannot change without time so existing without time is as useless as it is meaningless.


I don't think "changing" is a necessary part of the definition of God in any meaningful way. He's eternal. What makes you think he changes over time?


You misunderstand. Taking action is a change from the way things were. Change cannot happen without time.

Change and action include a time component within our universe. That doesn't mean the same rules apply outside of our universe.

perhaps you can be the first to explain what it means to exist for no time?

I agree there are things unknown. You are certainly free to speculate about them, but be honest that they are unknown speculations and never present them as knowns. This is the problem with insisting there is a god that exists outside of space and time.

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: Documentary - Religulous [veganerd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
perhaps you can be the first to explain what it means to exist for no time?

Why would I do that? It's not pertinent. God doesn't exist for "no time." He exists independent of time. Within our universe, he is eternal. In other words, he exists in all time.

Quote:
You are certainly free to speculate about them, but be honest that they are unknown speculations and never present them as knowns. This is the problem with insisting there is a god that exists outside of space and time.

We come back to the concept of faith and belief, which is what religion involves. There is no problem with insisting that there is a God who exists independent of time and space, so long as we acknowledge that we are unable to prove it.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Documentary - Religulous [50+] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
50+ wrote:
I'll go back to church when someone can explain free choice and a omniscient creator. That is, how can we have free choice to make our own decisions if God already knew everything we were going to do before he/it created the universe

I am working on an explanation for this, here is what I have come up with:

You build two staircases that are used hundreds of times per day. One has has three grip strips on each case, the other just the standard single strip. You sit and watch. Over the course of several years there are a few slips and falls. Some on each of the two staircases. But overtime a lot more people slip on the single strip case. Did you know more people would slip on the single grip side? Yes. But if you ask the guy who ran up the stairs, didn't use the handrail and consequently slipped if he was operating with his own freewill is he going to deny it and say you made him slip?
Quote Reply
Re: Documentary - Religulous [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Why would I do that? It's not pertinent. God doesn't exist for "no time." He exists independent of time. Within our universe, he is eternal. In other words, he exists in all time

Outside of time is the same as no time. You can't insist that he exists outside of time while also saying that he exists for all time.. the statements are in conflict.

Quote:
We come back to the concept of faith and belief, which is what religion involves. There is no problem with insisting that there is a God who exists independent of time and space, so long as we acknowledge that we are unable to prove it.

We're saying quite similar things here.

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: Documentary - Religulous [veganerd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Outside of time is the same as no time.

No, it's really not, but that's not what I said. I said he exists independent of time.

Quote:
You can't insist that he exists outside of time while also saying that he exists for all time.. the statements are in conflict.

I didn't say that. What I said is that "within our universe, he is eternal."

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Documentary - Religulous [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
Outside of time is the same as no time.

No, it's really not, but that's not what I said. I said he exists independent of time.

Quote:
You can't insist that he exists outside of time while also saying that he exists for all time.. the statements are in conflict.

I didn't say that. What I said is that "within our universe, he is eternal."

youre still saying the same thing. independent of time, is the same as outside of time, is the same as no time.

you didnt say it, but others did which is what we were talking about.

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: Documentary - Religulous [veganerd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
youre still saying the same thing. independent of time, is the same as outside of time, is the same as no time.

Again, no, not really. Independent of time, does not mean the same as no time.

If I tell you that I am independent from money, that means I am not dependent on money to exist or survive. That doesn't necessarily mean I have no money.

God's existence is independent from time. It is not tied to time, limited by time, etc. That doesn't mean that he exists for no time. It means he is not bound by our conception of time. Time, in our universe, exists as a function of the expansion of the universe after the big bang. If God existed "before" the big bang, and created the big bang (and by extension, everything that followed) that means he created time. If he created time, certainly he is not dependent on it to exist, because he existed "before" time did. However, that doesn't mean he exists for no time. If he existed "before" time began, and will exist "after" time ends, then he actually exist for all of time. Hence the characterization of God as eternal.

Quote:
you didnt say it, but others did which is what we were talking about.

What I'm talking about is God and his relationship to time. If you just want to nitpick and bitch about what other people said, instead of moving forward in the conversation, then I'll leave you to it. I'm not interested.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply

Prev Next