Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 21 Apr 2010 21:15 .. .. .. >> --- >> God's decision was to give us free will, so the decision whether or not >> to deny the existence of God is ours. >> >> JF > >God gets points for constructing the human mind with free will/choice. --- More like constructing the universe so that free will cold exist in it. --- >Then god takes choice away by choosing for you what options you have for >the afterlife. --- What options would you like to see available that aren't there? --- >God's free will is better than your free will. --- Well, I like to think of it in the context of designing a machine and programming it to learn what it is it's supposed to do, autonomously, but with constraints. --- >God decides/chooses for you the afterlife choices. --- Well, sure. Every game has rules, you know. --- >Choice A: An afterlife with God >Choice B: No afterlife --- You forgot Choice C: An afterlife without God --- >You have the free will to choose option A or B. --- Or C, but I'm not so sure about B, since "no afterlife" implies "no soul." Maybe that's what God does with atheists; kill their putative immortal soul, (which He created, anyway) so they won't have to suffer, forever, for their arrogance. Or, maybe, if they're Mormons, God gives them their own universe so they can play at being God and see how it works out. --- >You have no free will to change the options or make more options. --- Yup, it's just like the three laws of thermodynamics: 1. You Can't Win 2. You Can't Break Even 3. You Can't Get Out Of The Game. --- >You don't have the free will to get an explanation for the grounds of >the 2 options. (Guessing fear facilitates indoctrination) --- Sure you do, use your free will to explore scripture. It's all there, including the part about God having a bigger hammer than you do and how He's used it against people who've intentionally pissed Him off. --- >Nor can free will make one free to will an afterlife to one's liking. --- That's because it's different on the other side. What you get to do here is choose which of the three afterlife options you want and then play the game in a way which will get you that choice. --- >Ultimate true free will is when one is free to will/choose any course of >action and not be limited by 2 options from a God. --- In that case, since you don't believe in any God, there are no restraints on you and you can do whatever you will with impunity, since you have no soul and no place for your fire to go when you die, except out. But, you do have the constraints placed on you by secular authority. Where do you think those constraints came from? --- >Only God has free will. --- It's written that God created us in his own image so, if you believe the writings, if He has free will so do we. --- (At a deeper level God has no free will either.) --- So you believe in determinism? --- >There is no free will when a God forces upon you a fork in the road when >you freely willed not be presented with a fork in the road. --- Not being God, you can't will for no fork to be presented, you must simply choose whether to take the left fork, the right fork, to stay put, or to go back. --- >Christian engineers are ridiculous to think that there's free will when >humans don't have the free will to PRODUCE the afterlife options. --- Having human free will doesn't mean being able to set up choices, it means being able to freely choose between the options presented. JF
From: D from BC on 21 Apr 2010 21:36 In article <plqus5d82erhcvjojrbtc70d31qb5a602a(a)4ax.com>, jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > >It's pointless to pray to an irresponsible God. > > --- > How would _you_ know? > --- > Pray for malaria to go away instantly. If nothing happens, it's pointless to pray to an irresponsible God. God is responsible for the existence of malaria. People didn't make malaria and people did not make a supernatural angel that made malaria. God is evil in neglecting to eliminate malaria. Christian engineers are ridiculous in believing prayer does something. -- D from BC British Columbia
From: RogerN on 21 Apr 2010 22:32 "D from BC" <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote in message news:MPG.263936dcd75e41929897eb(a)209.197.12.12... > In article <plqus5d82erhcvjojrbtc70d31qb5a602a(a)4ax.com>, > jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... >> >Even if true, God is ridiculous by doing nothing. >> >> --- >> Tou have no clue what God is or isn't doing, and it's _you_ who's >> ridiculous in expecting God to live up to _your_ expectations. >> > > The bible has God doing lots of things in the bible. > Now God does nothing.. That's a strange change. > Perhaps it's the presence of HD camcorders and digital cameras and cell > phone cameras. > There's more evidence that God does nothing compared to evidence that > God does something. > > Prayer doesn't work especially for zero probability events. > There's been no recent defiances of physics such burning bushes, parted > seas and killing of 1st born. > No amputees have had their legs or arms grow back. > > Christian engineers are ridiculous in naming what's unknown as God. > > > -- > D from BC > British Columbia > At least you're consistent, consistently wrong! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATFfZkIkrq8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH1SlSB9uH8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXrZO_S-4hU&feature=related RogerN
From: Jon Kirwan on 24 Apr 2010 03:29 Let's start with a basic question or two. Maybe we can agree on some initial points. (1) Do you agree or disagree? "As an absolute minimalist point of view, the Establishment Clause was intended by the signatories to the US Constitution at the time of signing it to, at bottom, prohibit the federal government from declaring and/or supporting a national religion, as existed in many other countries at that time?" (2) What is the first case where the Supreme Court set out to interpret the Establishment Clause, have you read it, and if so what about the majority decision in that case is still noteworthy and important today? What significant ground is broken, aside from the mere fact that it was the first case taking on this task? I have a hunch we won't even get this far, perhaps not even on one of these let alone both. And if not, then I think you and I have some serious research ahead of us before we can proceed, at all. Jon
From: D from BC on 24 Apr 2010 03:37
In article <3l1ns59hs5dnismh3vkdmoedb3vte2p1at(a)4ax.com>, jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > >You are belittled when God requires to be 'believed' and needs to be > >ASKED first/prayed to or else no miracle/cure. > > --- > What you seem to have missed is that those who are doing the curing know > you don't want to die and have, for the most part, asked God to help > them save your life, even if you don't believe in God. > --- > It doesn't matter who's doing the praying/asking. It's the praying/asking that is the problem. The Hippocratic oath is a 'Just do it' ethic due to most people wanting to be fixed by a doctor/surgeon. A doctor doesn't wait to be asked when a person is spurting blood everywhere in front of him. IN contrast, God waits to be asked when a person is spurting blood everywhere in front of him. (omnipresence) God uses coercion. 'I'll do it but you have to pray...' God DOES NOT have a 'Just do it' ethic. God is so extravagant that he needs/wants/demands to be prayed to/asked otherwise God does the evil action of doing nothing. God's power is more important that altruism. It's disgusting. Christian engineers are ridiculous in that not only is prayer ineffective but is also nonessential due to Gods omnipresence, omnibenevolence and omniscience. It's obvious to God what you'd pray if you were to pray. Even to God, National prayer day is pointless. Mythbusters on prayer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOEPQlJA2-A -- D from BC British Columbia |