Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You failed to get the point. Those who deny free will will act exactly the same way as those who affirm free will. It is the determinist who is inconsistent and self-contradictory. If you even say you choose A over B, how can you be using the language of free will and yet deny it exists?
This is the part where your solipsism comes in... I respect your rejection of "freewill is a myth" concept.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:This is the part where your solipsism comes in...
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
All you need to do is say if you agree or not, and why.
No... its up you to grasp the standard definition and decide to agree or disagree with it. You don't even have to say it. Nothing to do with me.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:No... its up you to grasp the standard definition and decide to agree or disagree with it. You don't even have to say it. Nothing to do with me.
At least I'm honestly open to ideas. And I have VERY high tolerance for verbal abuse, insults, false accusations, rejections and still respond with propriety...
Originally posted by Aneslayer:At least I'm honestly open to ideas. And I have VERY high tolerance for verbal abuse, insults, false accusations, rejections and still respond with propriety...
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Needless to say, you have to be tolerant of the very things that you hurl at others. A robber should have a high tolerance for being robbed. Duh
So you are also saying.... "A robber should have a high tolerance for being robbed."---> "A killer should have a high tolerance for being killed."--->"A preacher should have a high tolerance for being preached."?
You follow your logic, I follow mine. You missed the point completely, which I don't blame you. The keyword are: "respond" and "propriety".
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Then I submit that one cannot go from "the universe is complex" to "God is more complex than the universe" since the former is a physical entity whereas the latter is not. In fact, to speak of God as a complex being is most unusual. See http://creation.com/god-simpleWhile you share Dawkins' view as seeing no reason to postulate the existence of God, many people see a host of reasons to credit God as being the cause of the universe. But I would like to hear from you why the current understanding of the universe means that there is no place for God.
Attributes such as omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience necessitate complexity. The simplictiy mentioned in that article you gave is not the definition of simple which I'm talking about. I'm not speaking about God being composed of parts per se, that would be preposterous. I'm talking about complex mental attributes which have an effect on the physical world. Such as the ability to create universes and know your thoughts and etcetra. I would like to know some of the reasons for postulating God as the cause of the universe. Since you'd like to hear from me first, okay :P With our current understanding of physical cosmology, we have smaller and smaller gaps which need to be filled. I do not see a need to predicate the existence of a God to explain current unknowns. God of the gaps may seem appealing to many as it has total explanatory power, but I reject it because it has zero predictive capability and is an unfalsifiable thesis.