What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: SOB) on 29 Mar 2005 12:55 On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:02:41 GMT, Elroy Willis <elroywillis(a)swbell.net> wrote: >> God cannot be expected to do something that contradicts reality. >> Foreknowledge of things that are intrinsically unknowable is not >> possible. >Then that renders Biblical prophecies impossible or invalid. That's >the reason I don't believe in them, because I don't think the future >is fixed in stone or knowable to 100% accuracy. You can know something about unknowable aspects of a process. For example, you can know that if a Turing Machine does not contain a halt instruction that it is never going to halt, and you can know the half-life for radioactive decay. The prophets were speculating on their take of human nature and extrapolating it to future events. For example, we observe throughout History that man never fails to use new technology for warfare and that such use changes the way people live in dramatic ways. If you felt secure behind your stone castle walls, your way of life is about to change dramatically when man discovers how to make gunpowder. Therefore it is not all that difficult to extrapolate that behavior of man to include the latest technology, such as nuclear weapons. Although we have seen very limited use, we now have to face the fact that third world nations have the technology at their disposal. It is straightforward to conclude that man will uses nuclear weapons for warfare in a general manner in the not so distant future. The exact date for such usage, if at all, is not knowable. Even God cannot know. But we do have reasonable certainty that it will happen, just like we have reasonable certainty that there are Turing Machines that will never halt no matter how long you let them run and just like we have reasonable certainty that we will observe some radioactive decay events during a half-lives. To avoid being prejudicial, you should at least study prophesy. If after you have done that you can provide reasons that you do not accept it, then at least you cannot be branded an anti-religious bigot by those who differ with you. A good book to consider is "Armegeddon" by Grant Jeffrry. It appears to be out of print so you will have to get it from interlibrary loan. >It's useless to pretend that some invisible god knows anything at all, >don't you think? What purpose does it serve? Even the godbots claim >they can't understand the so-called "plan" of their god. You are criticizing theology. I have no problem with such criticism, as long as it does not spill over into Science, which includes Philosophy, in particular Existential Metaphysics. I am sure God knows something. After all, as the Supreme Being, He is the cause of Existence. Whether there is some kind of "plan" sounds theological to me. >The whole >idea is ridiculous and impossible, but they won't admit it for some >reason. "Religion has its own work, which is to educate people who are too dull to understand philosophy, or too untutored to be amenable to its teaching. This is why religion is necessary, for what it preaches is fundamentally the same as what philosophy teaches, and, unless common men believed what it preaches, they would behave like beasts. But theologians should preach, not teach, just as philosophers should teach, not preach. Theologians should not attempt to demonstrate, because they cannot do it, and philosophers must be careful not to get belief mixed up with what they prove, because then they can no longer prove anything. Now, to preach creation is just a handy way to make people feel that God is their Master, which is true even though, as is well known by those who truly philosophize, nothing of the sort ever happened." --Etienne Gilson, "Being and Some Philosophers", p. 52 -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life."
From: SOB) on 29 Mar 2005 12:56 On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:07:01 GMT, Elroy Willis <elroywillis(a)swbell.net> wrote: >> Only the Devil can motivate someone to become a lawyer. >I think this clinches your troll status... You have just discovered the obvious. I never denied being a troll. You could have asked before wasting all that brain power. I am the Internet's only official Jesuitical Heathen Troll. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life."
From: Robibnikoff on 29 Mar 2005 12:58 "Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message news:424991d9.17889023(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:18:49 -0500, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo(a)broomstick.com> wrote: > > >> Only the Devil can motivate someone to become a lawyer. > > >> God would never coerce someone to become evil. > > >How would you know? > > Professional courtesy. Ah, guess you're just another garden-variety troll. Have a nice life. <remaining nonsensical bullshit snipped> -- ------ Robyn Resident Witchypoo #1557
From: SOB) on 29 Mar 2005 13:02 On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:48:23 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk(a)email.com> wrote: >> This line of thinking solves the dilemna of Free Will. You can make >> decisions that even God does not know about until you make them. >I'm afraid that doesn't let your god off the hook at all. Even *I* can see >that if someone locks a hundred people in a shed and reaches for the tap >marked "Poisonous Gas", something bad is going to happen. What would you propose that God do in such an instance? >If your god actually existed He better exist or else nothing exists. >he would either have to be ignorant of everything that >happens in the world (not much of a god) Why do you say that? You are assuming that God can be expected to do something that you claim He should. But God cannot be expected to do certain things that result in contradictions. >or powerless to change anything (still not much of a god) Why do you say that? You are assuming that God can be expected to do something that you claim He should. But God cannot be expected to do certain things that result in contradictions. > or chooses not to change anything (a sicko). Why do you say that? You are assuming that God can be expected to do something that you claim He should. But God cannot be expected to do certain things that result in contradictions. >Which do you think fits the bill best? None of you expectations can be fulfilled without resulting in contradiction. Therefore it is your expectations that are invalid, not God. You left out the most obvious. But you won't be able to see it if you continue to blind yourself with anti-religious bigotry. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life."
From: SOB) on 29 Mar 2005 14:45
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:58:20 -0500, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo(a)broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> Only the Devil can motivate someone to become a lawyer. >> >> God would never coerce someone to become evil. >> >How would you know? >> Professional courtesy. >Ah, guess you're just another garden-variety troll. Have a nice life. ><remaining nonsensical bullshit snipped> I resemble that remark! I am not another garden-variety troll. I am the Internet's only officially certified Jesuitical Heathen Troll. If you don't know the difference, then at least pay the respect due me by not making insulting comments about "another garden-variety troll". <hrrrumph!> -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life." |