You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Why won't God heal amputees?"
- Thread starter lkh
- Start date
about 4 pages previous and HERE!!!Quote from TM_Direct:
WHERE???
...Just what's so 'not obvious' in living for the sake of life alone?
It may suggest that to you, then back it up. However it does not suggest that to me.Quote from TM_Direct:
AGAIN, IF THERE IS NO FREE WILL BUT AN OBVIOUS REASON FOR LIVING ( according TO YOUR WORDS)....THEN THAT MIGHT SUGGEST THAT OUR LIVES ARE PREDESTINED
How can you know??. But anyway, no need. No free will, no predestination. Reason for living.. the sake of it. What more do you want. A God to hold your hand?Quote from TM_Direct:
NATURE CANNOT PROVIDE PREDESTINATION. HMMMM...
Ok jem, shall we test that, see if it is what I am doing. Or could it be.... perhaps... in the confusion of your own argument.... the nah nah malady is yours, but think you can blame me for it...
Let's look at the post record.
You used Thesaurus for all the meanings and simile's for 'free will' and came to the conclusion :
jem : "Free choice is virtually the same as free will."
My response to that : "Virtually the same? Like every woman is virtually pregnant until she conceives?"
At this point do you realize you have nothing to back up with? Why else would you simply ignore what has been said , close your ears and eyes and go nah nah nah nah... with this...
jem :"Notice STU did not address the fact that his argument was totally and completely shut down by the Thesaurus."
Who are you adressing jem? Do you have an argument to properly respond with or not?
How come you are so keen to jump to "completely shut down" by something which only virtually suggests free will/free choice are similar.
The thesaurus (what is wrong with the dictionary) arrives at "virtually", but you must want your religion to be right so much, that you close your eyes, ears and even mind, to ignore all the weaknesses in your dubious conclusion. Why?
So the record shows, you do the nah nah bit and think it's me doing it. Is there a doctor in the house?
I have offered reason and explained why free will is not the same as free choice. All you seem to want to achieve is a trivialization of the meaning of free will, so that you can equate all free choice with free will to suit religious contentions, whilst at the same time conveniently ignoring the fact that choices offered are conditional.
When consequences are trivial it is a generally accepted turn of phrase to say "he made the choice by his own free will".
It is reasonable to suggest the same, when everyone knows the circumstances under which a decision is made, but dismiss the conditions which generally are not or cannot be known or understood at the time, and use the term 'free will' in that context.
In context of this thread and where the glossing over of terms words and meaning is regularly used by some theists to try and support their ridiculous notions, then examination of how the term actually applies is legitimate.
Some theists don't like that. ZZzz trolls flames and insults as he runs out of argument, whilst you quickly reduce yours to contradiction and this blind and deaf nah nah nah stuff, in order to blank what is actually being said. Surely you can do better than that.
Let's look at the post record.
You used Thesaurus for all the meanings and simile's for 'free will' and came to the conclusion :
jem : "Free choice is virtually the same as free will."
My response to that : "Virtually the same? Like every woman is virtually pregnant until she conceives?"
At this point do you realize you have nothing to back up with? Why else would you simply ignore what has been said , close your ears and eyes and go nah nah nah nah... with this...
jem :"Notice STU did not address the fact that his argument was totally and completely shut down by the Thesaurus."
Who are you adressing jem? Do you have an argument to properly respond with or not?
How come you are so keen to jump to "completely shut down" by something which only virtually suggests free will/free choice are similar.
The thesaurus (what is wrong with the dictionary) arrives at "virtually", but you must want your religion to be right so much, that you close your eyes, ears and even mind, to ignore all the weaknesses in your dubious conclusion. Why?
So the record shows, you do the nah nah bit and think it's me doing it. Is there a doctor in the house?
I have offered reason and explained why free will is not the same as free choice. All you seem to want to achieve is a trivialization of the meaning of free will, so that you can equate all free choice with free will to suit religious contentions, whilst at the same time conveniently ignoring the fact that choices offered are conditional.
When consequences are trivial it is a generally accepted turn of phrase to say "he made the choice by his own free will".
It is reasonable to suggest the same, when everyone knows the circumstances under which a decision is made, but dismiss the conditions which generally are not or cannot be known or understood at the time, and use the term 'free will' in that context.
In context of this thread and where the glossing over of terms words and meaning is regularly used by some theists to try and support their ridiculous notions, then examination of how the term actually applies is legitimate.
Some theists don't like that. ZZzz trolls flames and insults as he runs out of argument, whilst you quickly reduce yours to contradiction and this blind and deaf nah nah nah stuff, in order to blank what is actually being said. Surely you can do better than that.
Stu I said virtually the same because that is as close as you can come without being the same.
You being the virtually deceitful argurer seize on that trivial point and contruct and irrelevant argument.
No one with half a brain is fooled by your lack of integrity.
Point is by definition (literally Roget's Theasaurus) you are wrong.
By continuing to make b.s. arguments you prove you self to be the fake Stu and a fake intellect.
Free will is the equivalent of free choice for the purposes of this argument. I have proven it by an authority on synonyms.
You make you own defintinions up. I can not think of a more absurd position taken up by anyone but you and the one I presume to be - Axeman. He too used to argue that dictionary definitions were inferior to his own beliefs. I bet you are axeman.
Again do not deny it unless you deny you are the original STU.
You being the virtually deceitful argurer seize on that trivial point and contruct and irrelevant argument.
No one with half a brain is fooled by your lack of integrity.
Point is by definition (literally Roget's Theasaurus) you are wrong.
By continuing to make b.s. arguments you prove you self to be the fake Stu and a fake intellect.
Free will is the equivalent of free choice for the purposes of this argument. I have proven it by an authority on synonyms.
You make you own defintinions up. I can not think of a more absurd position taken up by anyone but you and the one I presume to be - Axeman. He too used to argue that dictionary definitions were inferior to his own beliefs. I bet you are axeman.
Again do not deny it unless you deny you are the original STU.
I do it right, you do wrong.
I do it right, you do wrong.
I do it right, you do wrong.
That sure is a heck of an argument ya got goin on there stu...
LOL!
By the way, I don't flame you stu, I cleverly ridicule your convoluted intellectually baseless and moronic arguments.
Big difference ya know, sort of like your difference between "free will and free choice...."
Too bloody funny....
I do it right, you do wrong.
I do it right, you do wrong.
That sure is a heck of an argument ya got goin on there stu...
LOL!
By the way, I don't flame you stu, I cleverly ridicule your convoluted intellectually baseless and moronic arguments.
Big difference ya know, sort of like your difference between "free will and free choice...."
Too bloody funny....
Quote from stu:
Ok jem, shall we test that, see if it is what I am doing. Or could it be.... perhaps... in the confusion of your own argument.... the nah nah malady is yours, but think you can blame me for it...
Let's look at the post record.
You used Thesaurus for all the meanings and simile's for 'free will' and came to the conclusion :
jem : "Free choice is virtually the same as free will."
My response to that : "Virtually the same? Like every woman is virtually pregnant until she conceives?"
At this point do you realize you have nothing to back up with? Why else would you simply ignore what has been said , close your ears and eyes and go nah nah nah nah... with this...
jem :"Notice STU did not address the fact that his argument was totally and completely shut down by the Thesaurus."
Who are you adressing jem? Do you have an argument to properly respond with or not?
How come you are so keen to jump to "completely shut down" by something which only virtually suggests free will/free choice are similar.
The thesaurus (what is wrong with the dictionary) arrives at "virtually", but you must want your religion to be right so much, that you close your eyes, ears and even mind, to ignore all the weaknesses in your dubious conclusion. Why?
So the record shows, you do the nah nah bit and think it's me doing it. Is there a doctor in the house?
I have offered reason and explained why free will is not the same as free choice. All you seem to want to achieve is a trivialization of the meaning of free will, so that you can equate all free choice with free will to suit religious contentions, whilst at the same time conveniently ignoring the fact that choices offered are conditional.
When consequences are trivial it is a generally accepted turn of phrase to say "he made the choice by his own free will".
It is reasonable to suggest the same, when everyone knows the circumstances under which a decision is made, but dismiss the conditions which generally are not or cannot be known or understood at the time, and use the term 'free will' in that context.
In context of this thread and where the glossing over of terms words and meaning is regularly used by some theists to try and support their ridiculous notions, then examination of how the term actually applies is legitimate.
Some theists don't like that. ZZzz trolls flames and insults as he runs out of argument, whilst you quickly reduce yours to contradiction and this blind and deaf nah nah nah stuff, in order to blank what is actually being said. Surely you can do better than that.
So you say, indeed, "close as you can come without being the same".Quote from jem:
Stu I said virtually the same because that is as close as you can come without being the same.
What is so funny about this is you do actually agree it IS NOT the same, and at the same time seem to think you have some special pleading to argue it IS the same.
For the "purpose of this argument" it is the equivalent?! Do you mean there are times outside of this argument when it is not equivalent.??Quote from jem:
Free will is the equivalent of free choice for the purposes of this argument. I have proven it by an authority on synonyms.
Which is to say according to you (after cutting through all your usual angry insults) , free choice is (sometimes) near enough the same as free will, so as to be of no discernable difference.
So far as the "purpose of this argument" go and in context, you are given two choices. Believe in a God worship idea or go to hell.
As you would have it, that is a "free choice". You have a so called free choice and therefore , you say, along comes free will (virtually!) - automatically - simply because of the free choice.
BUT wait! Where IS the free choice? To do 2 things only? Both of which you might not want to choose? How the hell is that anything like free choice?
Here's some more of your version of free choice . You are free to choose ( in theme with the thread tile no less!) in context again, between having your fingers cut off or your hand amputated.
There you go jem, free choice and free will to choose between the two. Or would free choice be nearer to real free choice were you able to really follow your will freely.... and choose neither?!
Because you don't like the fact that your precious religious demand that God is supposed to give "free will", is nothing actually to do with peoples' will being free, is not reason enough to my mind (unless of course your only aim is to be a flame troll along with ZZzz ) for making and trying to defend such sanctimonious and pathetic arguments in the way you do.
Proof #37 - Think about DNA
Many religious belivers use the existence of DNA as a proof for God's existence. The logic goes something like this:
DNA is information. The amount of information encapsulated in a single strand of human DNA would fill 400 volumes the size of an Encyclopedia Britanica, and this information contains an exact blueprint for creating a human being. This information did not write itself. The creation of information requires intelligence. The creation of an encyclopedia requires an author - a creator. God is the creator of the information in DNA.
As we saw in Proof #25, however, there is no "creator" for DNA. The creator is evolution. No intelligence is required to encode DNA. Instead, the information in DNA is the result of natural selection acting upon random mutations, rather than the actions of a "being" like God.
The fact is that there are millions of scientists who have assembled entire libraries full of information showing that evolution is where all the species on earth came from. Thousands of clergy members have even signed a letter stating their belief in all of this scientific evidence. http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm
Does this prove that God is imaginary? As in Proof #8 (on near death experiences), the answer is "no." However, many believers use the existence of DNA as "indisputable" evidence that God must exist. We can scientifically and irrefutably show that nature, rather than any "god", created all of the information encoded in DNA.
Many religious belivers use the existence of DNA as a proof for God's existence. The logic goes something like this:
DNA is information. The amount of information encapsulated in a single strand of human DNA would fill 400 volumes the size of an Encyclopedia Britanica, and this information contains an exact blueprint for creating a human being. This information did not write itself. The creation of information requires intelligence. The creation of an encyclopedia requires an author - a creator. God is the creator of the information in DNA.
As we saw in Proof #25, however, there is no "creator" for DNA. The creator is evolution. No intelligence is required to encode DNA. Instead, the information in DNA is the result of natural selection acting upon random mutations, rather than the actions of a "being" like God.
The fact is that there are millions of scientists who have assembled entire libraries full of information showing that evolution is where all the species on earth came from. Thousands of clergy members have even signed a letter stating their belief in all of this scientific evidence. http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm
Does this prove that God is imaginary? As in Proof #8 (on near death experiences), the answer is "no." However, many believers use the existence of DNA as "indisputable" evidence that God must exist. We can scientifically and irrefutably show that nature, rather than any "god", created all of the information encoded in DNA.