|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 20, 2024 21:37:41 GMT
I know. It’s getting late. The actual not omnibenevolent argument is that god has pet favorites who get blessed with grâce and others which are not. I don't know about all that, but if there's nothing God can't do, then he wouldn't be bound by what we consider paradoxes. In the context of this thread, that would mean he could simultaneously exist and not exist. Once omniscience is introduced into the conversation, all imposed limits are nonsensical. I think here you mean 'omnipotence.'
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 20, 2024 21:59:49 GMT
"Because it is only those who want things easy need them simple." It's not a matter of need, or even want. It's just simple, full stop. I am pleased you find it so. It must be very reassuring. But the impression is that you really need it so. It's actually a bit worrisome that you are struggling with it. Here, you are imposing limits on what is allegedly unlimited. If it knows everything, then it knows how to make all decisions possible without compromise. And yet there it is, waiting for you to not eat it. I don't know about all that, but if there's nothing God can't do, then he wouldn't be bound by what we consider paradoxes. In the context of this thread, that would mean he could simultaneously exist and not exist. Once omniscience is introduced into the conversation, all imposed limits are nonsensical. I think here you mean 'omnipotence.' Only if you mean omniscience doesn't include knowing how to do something.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 20, 2024 22:14:24 GMT
"Because it is only those who want things easy need them simple." It's not a matter of need, or even want. It's just simple, full stop. I am pleased you find it so. It must be very reassuring. Good. So, since oddly you didn't, let's address the situation of a god who knows everything in this context. If it knows everything for certain then only some decisions are possible, and in these cases it would have no free will. For instance a god which exists would know it exists and could not believe otherwise, so according to your logic would lack free will to choose otherwise. The same god would presumably also have no choice but to believe in hell, heaven, that the events of scripture took place, even its inability to change its nature.It would be "forced" and "coerced" (your emphasis) into acceptance, according to your idea of things. See how it works? Sorry, but I still refuse to accept your bean exists. And at the moment your deity looks pretty dodgy too. Now, wait à minut flaneur ! That is requested in order to actually read admin’s posting. You wrote the d... question and postulated any doubt removal, not admin !
Doubt is removed because you write it is. Point.
You go on with your fantasy litterature choosing to ignore what is written to you. No, your assumption is false. If ”god” knows everything for certain than.... that’s what you write ad nauseam and it has not the last link with what admin wrote to you, with all due respect to you. You are the one who postulated the complete removal of doubt. Doubt is completely removed because that is written in a sentence of yours, that is your choice and utter right as a fiction writer, but you do not write reality and you don’t write admin sentences for admin. You reply to admin that you refuse to believe ”the bean” exists. ” ”. That is acknowlegement. It might not be real, but you considered it, so at last its virtual in your mind. Both of yours, actually. You wrote à fiction, you are entitled to it, but you can’t rule out facts. You fiction is flawed. And we are not in court, where what you do being blind to evidence and judging us is actually done. And sure, you do not engage in à systematic study, as science would. I was wrong, On that point it’s not disingenuity, it’s prejudice on your part. Have we done anything wrong ?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 20, 2024 23:16:36 GMT
You reply to admin that you refuse to believe ”the bean” exists. ” ”. That is acknowlegement. Unless it's nonexistent only when we aren't looking, I'd bet my bottom dollar that it's still there, existing completely independent of whether or not anyone believes it or even thinks of it.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 20, 2024 23:33:59 GMT
Yeah, well, So would have Pascal. 🎰
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 20, 2024 23:53:21 GMT
Yeah, well, So would have Pascal. If you're referring to his wager, I'll tell you that FF didn't choose to believe there was only one jelly bean. ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png)
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 21, 2024 0:15:48 GMT
You are the one who postulated the complete removal of doubt. Doubt is completely removed because that is written in a sentence of yours, that is your choice and utter right as a fiction writer, but you do not write reality and you don’t write admin sentences for admin. I will answer as best I can but your English is so mangled I am not entirely sure of your points. First, it is hard to make out which doubt you refer to, the necessary lack of any for a wholly omniscient being or the natural doubt of a human who has yet to be persuaded for they are not the same Since God knows everything there can be no doubt in His mind. This is not the same as my original question which suggests that an informed decision would obviously enable me to use my free will more wisely and help resolve doubt. Second you miss the point which was Admin was telling me that because something is clear and unambiguous I am "forced" or "coerced", apparently into accepting it with a concurrent loss of free will, rather a strained argument. The fact remains, as I have carefully explained, that I still have the choice still not to accept the obvious.. (I can even ignore things entirely and not make a choice - a choice in itself.) Also, if I refuse to believe something yes, it is yes acknowledging an idea but does not mean my disbelief is not valid. I presume you know of Santa but do not feel obliged to think he exists? I hope that helps. Yes; prejudiced in favour making informed decisions whenever I can as best practice.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 21, 2024 0:16:35 GMT
You reply to admin that you refuse to believe ”the bean” exists. ” ”. That is acknowlegement. Unless it's nonexistent only when we aren't looking, I'd bet my bottom dollar that it's still there, existing completely independent of whether or not anyone believes it or even thinks of it. If only we have the information to know for sure, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 21, 2024 0:27:38 GMT
Unless it's nonexistent only when we aren't looking, I'd bet my bottom dollar that it's still there, existing completely independent of whether or not anyone believes it or even thinks of it. If only we have the information to know for sure, eh? The information is on page 6. Surely you don't think it isn't there if you ignore it?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 21, 2024 0:30:44 GMT
It's actually a bit worrisome that you are struggling with it. Any struggle here is in having to repeat myself. I think the point was rather that, as you are fond of telling me, in some cases only one decision is possible. If God truly knows everything, that would be maximally informed knowledge and so His certainty is absolute. Can God doubt he exists? Here 'all decisions possible' amount to one - which is the instances we are discussing although I appreciate the diversion into all decisions generally. As an obdurate no-beaner I choose to still not believe it. Wil you force me now? See how it works? Omnipotence is concerned with power not knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 21, 2024 0:33:41 GMT
Yeah, well, So would have Pascal. If you're referring to his wager, I'll tell you that FF didn't choose to believe there was only one jelly bean. ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png) As already said I chose to still doubt the bean exists, despite all the evidence you can muster. I await the coercion working.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 21, 2024 0:35:15 GMT
If only we have the information to know for sure, eh? The information is on page 6. Surely you don't think it isn't there if you ignore it? Nah, I don't believe it and won't. Can you force me? Your reliance on offering up information to help make a choice though is touching - and wow, sounds familiar to something I have recommended lol. You realise whatever you say I still have the choice to be obdurate, right? Time to collect any bean and move on.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 21, 2024 0:46:17 GMT
It's actually a bit worrisome that you are struggling with it. Any struggle here is in having to repeat myself. I think I see the problem. Read: No, I said that if there's only one option, there's no decision to be made. Apparently the problem is that you don't read my posts as diligently as you read your own. Tell me again the difference between omniscience and omnipotence. Take it to Lourdes. I told you, I already did. I put it right in your face and you acknowledged when you said you might not want to eat it. And it's still there on page 6. Go have a look. I meant omniscience and corrected it before you posted your reply.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 21, 2024 0:47:36 GMT
The information is on page 6. Surely you don't think it isn't there if you ignore it? Nah, I don't believe it and won't. Can you force me? Your reliance on offering up information to help make a choice though is touching - and wow, sounds familiar to something I have recommended lol. You realise whatever you say I still have the choice to be obdurate, right? Time to collect any bean and move on. Too late.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 21, 2024 1:03:05 GMT
No, I said that if there's only one option, there's no decision to be made. Apparently the problem is that you don't read my posts as diligently as you read your own. The problem is that you have forgotten how you went on about free choice in the situation where none can be made. I am simply applying your logic to a deity which would prove the most extreme example. Omniscient: the state of knowing everything. Omnipotence: the quality of having unlimited or very great power. I hope that helps. Can you drop this now? The place where no arms or legs ever grow back? If they did that, it would constitute enough for me to make decision about God's existence. Oh. the loss of my free will if not believing is then made impossible eh? . As an obdurate no-beaner I choose to still not believe it. Wil you force me now?" Nope, still not believing it. All you have done is forced me to become more obdurate in my disbelief. The point really being that, even if God made it so that His existence ought to be clearly obvious and persuasive to all, there would still be the awkward squad. That does not mean though I cannot ask the question - which I did at the start - why He does not try for the rest, given His knowledge. But really we have bean here before and I am guessing that if you asked Him for a reason there was, mysteriously, no reply.. Assuming now you won't have anything fresh to add to all this, that is the last from me until you have.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 21, 2024 1:27:53 GMT
I will answer as best I can but your English is so mangled I am not entirely sure of your 🙄 You do feel bad so you attack ? Hard Day, was it ?
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 21, 2024 1:35:52 GMT
First, it is hard to make out which doubt you refer to, the necessary lack of any for a wholly omniscient being or the natural doubt of a human who has yet to be persuaded for they are not the same.
No one is going to believe you. That’s too hard. I copied and pasted what I’m referring to upabove. It’s your answear to the op. Focus.
|
|
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 21, 2024 1:46:42 GMT
Also, if I refuse to believe something yes, it is yes acknowledging an idea but does not mean my disbelief is not valid. I presume you know of Santa but do not feel obliged to think he exists? I hope that helps.
I would be compelled to believe to Santa if he made himsef known in the flesh beyond any doubt.
Captive audience. What you write is insane.
Yes; prejudiced in favour making informed decisions whenever I can as best practice.
And my english is garbled, I see.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 21, 2024 1:54:01 GMT
No, I said that if there's only one option, there's no decision to be made. Apparently the problem is that you don't read my posts as diligently as you read your own. The problem is that you have forgotten how you went on about free choice in the situation where none can be made. You just proved my point with your response to it because that is neither what I said nor what I meant. Perhaps you could quote what you misunderstood. Do you remember telling me comparisons between humans and gods are invalid? I do. At any rate, if God made it impossible to doubt his existence, you wouldn't doubt his existence. Because it would be impossible. Hello. I really don't want to confuse you any further with all this simplicity, but if God were to make his existence known as well as you know your own, you still wouldn't believe - you would know. (Without a doubt, in fact.) If your response is that you doubt your own existence, then you need help beyond the scope of this discussion. Even Descartes knew when to stop. Nope! Because surely omniscience includes knowing how to be omnipotent. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, yeah? Problem is, you already saw. Oops! Besides, it wasn't originally an issue of the bean's existence; it was a matter of not being able to choose another one. Now seems a good time for you to ignore the first paragraph of this post again: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/5999501/threadYour own existence should be enough. And so it is. You choose to lack belief in God the same way you choose to lack belief in that jelly bean. What about the very words that you're reading right now? Can you refuse to believe they exist? lol So you say.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 21, 2024 12:10:10 GMT
I will answer as best I can but your English is so mangled I am not entirely sure of your 🙄 Please example my mangled English.
|
|