I just stumbled upon this by the way, and I found it to be a very logical and reasonable answer to Dawkins' argument.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Debunking Dawkins' Central Argument (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter rounder
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
I believe in macroeveolution and microevolution, I believe the universe is 14 billion years old, and the earth about 5 billion years old, I believe that the earliest forms of man can be traced back approximately 100 thousand years. Please explain to me how you even came to that conclusion.
Edit: Oh, I see.
Edit: Oh, I see.
Because if God only allowed us to be good, we would not be able to act freely and pesonally accept God out of our own will. If everyone was good, and no one was bad, then everybody by default would accept God, thus free will would not exist.
You don't have to, and that's the whole point. God does not force you to live your life by his rules, He gives you the freedom to act on your own account. We don't have to praise God, we choose to do so, thus we are not sheep since sheep cannot choose to do anything.
You don't have to, and that's the whole point. God does not force you to live your life by his rules, He gives you the freedom to act on your own account. We don't have to praise God, we choose to do so, thus we are not sheep since sheep cannot choose to do anything.
Dont think he debunked Dawkins Central argument. Because if you dont need to have an explanation of explanation, to accept the first explanation, like in his eg. Like finding some machinery on the back side of the moon, we dont need an explanation right away for this, because there is a possability of it happening, but in gods case, there isnt, not now not in the future, because god is supposed to be the first, so saying god would have to have a designer is valid argument, because the explanation itself would disprove god as some of you know it.
So god is a floating mind in the universe, eh? cool.
So god is a floating mind in the universe, eh? cool.
But we're not free. God made us, he built us. Which means he knows what we'll do. Doesn't make sense at all.
You're saying:
- God created man (so he knows what man is all about)
- He wants to see what man does (but he already knows that both because he built man and because he is all knowing in the first place)
What kind of retard is this God of yours?
You're saying:
- God created man (so he knows what man is all about)
- He wants to see what man does (but he already knows that both because he built man and because he is all knowing in the first place)
What kind of retard is this God of yours?
Being good and accepting god have nothing to do with each other. Religious people are no more good than others.
So if I didn't have the ability to be bad then I wouldn't have free will. But you know what? I don't have free will. I can't fly. I can't breathe under water. I can't read people's minds. So I don't have free will. Why should the ability to be bad be a requirement for free will but not flying?
And most importantly, if I have free will, I should have the power to destroy god. If I want to. THAT's free will. Until then I'm merely a slave of his.
So if I didn't have the ability to be bad then I wouldn't have free will. But you know what? I don't have free will. I can't fly. I can't breathe under water. I can't read people's minds. So I don't have free will. Why should the ability to be bad be a requirement for free will but not flying?
And most importantly, if I have free will, I should have the power to destroy god. If I want to. THAT's free will. Until then I'm merely a slave of his.
The two are not logically incompatible. He gave man the free will to choose to either accept or deny him, whether he knows this or not is irrelevant. Even if God knows what I will do next, that does not stop me from having the power of doing it. Thus I still maintain my free will regardless of the fact that an all-knowing being is pre-informed of my actions.
You are postulating that that God is an impossibility. I might also add that it is a highly unintelligible statement as well, you cannot assert something like that unless you have absolute evidence to back you up. What is your evidence for knowing that God is an impossibility.
On the intellectual level, asserting that God does exist or does not exist for sure is equally unintelligible and naive. Thus your hypothesis does not add up.
Because we are human beings and if our bodies would not be able to withstand the pressure of flying at certain altitiudes, we would quite simply die. What you may be talking about is immortality, not free will.
The free will I am talking about is being able to act and think freely without anyone or anything from stopping you. This is exactly the type of world we live in, thus we do have free will. And as I have mentioned earlier, the fact that God is pre-informed of our actions does not all conflict with the nature of our free will.
You are postulating that that God is an impossibility. I might also add that it is a highly unintelligible statement as well, you cannot assert something like that unless you have absolute evidence to back you up. What is your evidence for knowing that God is an impossibility.
On the intellectual level, asserting that God does exist or does not exist for sure is equally unintelligible and naive. Thus your hypothesis does not add up.
Because we are human beings and if our bodies would not be able to withstand the pressure of flying at certain altitiudes, we would quite simply die. What you may be talking about is immortality, not free will.
The free will I am talking about is being able to act and think freely without anyone or anything from stopping you. This is exactly the type of world we live in, thus we do have free will. And as I have mentioned earlier, the fact that God is pre-informed of our actions does not all conflict with the nature of our free will.
What possible purpose would that serve? God telling the Devil "You see, I told you so"? He would have built the entire universe, would have created man, would have created free will, just to demonstrate his power to.. well.. himself. It's not even an experiment FFS.
Let's say I build a chair. Then I say to my best mate (in casu the devil): "I bet that chair is going to fall over in five minutes.". Next thing you know I push the chair down.
What the fuck is that?
Let's say I build a chair. Then I say to my best mate (in casu the devil): "I bet that chair is going to fall over in five minutes.". Next thing you know I push the chair down.
What the fuck is that?
Not at all. Why shouldn't I have the power to fly just the way I have the power to submerge myself in water? In either direction, up or down, if I go too far I die. A perfect example of free will, wouldn't you say?
But no, I can't fly. If I could have I would have. So how can you call that free will? I'm being completely obstructed, I can't choose what I would have chosen.
I cannot act freely. I cannot even fly. I cannot see or talk to this supposed god. I cannot do any of the things I want. And god could have given me all these things, but he didn't. How is that free will?
Your free will argument is completely unconvincing.
But no, I can't fly. If I could have I would have. So how can you call that free will? I'm being completely obstructed, I can't choose what I would have chosen.
I cannot act freely. I cannot even fly. I cannot see or talk to this supposed god. I cannot do any of the things I want. And god could have given me all these things, but he didn't. How is that free will?
Your free will argument is completely unconvincing.
I think you're confusing free will with physical capabilities 