Small contradiction

[Joy]

The that would mean predestination is real. Which is not real in Christian religion. So, either God lied to us about free will or he could find out but doesn't butt in.

Either free will is real or omniscience. If the latter is real, then God had made the man rape the girl and then had the girl kill people. Which wouldn't make any sense what so ever. If free will is real, then Omniscience isn't. Which brings up the topic on how much of a contradictory that would be.

 

[CK the Fat]

Phoenix, go make yourself a ham sandwich.

(yes, there is a point to this.)

 

[Phoenix]

God is not himself fun. People praise god because they can have fun.

Now that we admit this, if religious people love God so much, why is he important in times of need?

But you were trying to argue that geniuses are genuises because of their brains. Having the right brain is only part of it. Genes without experience won't do crap.

And I readily admit this. However, experience isn't something you can control.

One that you are unable to think of, because your own personal experience does not permit you to? Interesting.

Indeed, my own personal, subjective experience of reading the Bible and being Christian.

Oh, and the objective logic of those that care about people save them when they have the power to.

...and using that accident they made something new.

They controlled the accident?

Phoenix, go make yourself a ham sandwich.

No. I have nothing to gain from following such an order. My experience makes me into this person, the one that won't do something just because. My genes are naturally stubborn, so even if you had a reason, I still might not do it.

 

[CK the Fat]

"Now that we admit this, if religious people love God so much, why is he important in times of need?"

Hope. Something contained within all humans, just come about in different ways.

"They controlled the accident?"

No, they controlled how they made use of it. They could have: 1) fled like animals, or 2) observe for the very first time and try to harvest it.

What about human instincts told those men to harvest fire, when every other instinct told them to run? Why that particular generation, and not the one after, or before, or a century away?

"No. I have nothing to gain from following such an order. My experience makes me into this person, the one that won't do something just because. My genes are naturally stubborn, so even if you had a reason, I still might not do it."

But the option is open, is it not? I'll assume you live near a deli. Or at least a grocery store with bread and sliced ham, and thus you could have produced a ham sandwich. But you say no, you absolutely could NOT have because your genes say so. In that case, nothing you've ever done in your life is your own action. You were forced to do it by--let's see--yourself. So you are basically following a stream of biological 100111010101001010101111000s. And if you say one really has no more control over their actions than experience and genes, they aren't much more than organic mush and a bunch of 100111010101001010101111000s, are they?

All right, I'll accept that. But it's really not going to hold up in court. "Everything about myself made me do it; I'm not really responsible for myself."

 

[Phoenix]

Hope. Something contained within all humans, just come about in different ways.

Making him a tool, and escape, not a person you love.

No, they controlled how they made use of it. They could have: 1) fled like animals, or 2) observe for the very first time and try to harvest it.

That choice was predetermined. The experiences ones that had dealt with animals and had learn to control their fear stayed, not because they chose to, but because curiosity beat fear.

What about human instincts told those men to harvest fire, when every other instinct told them to run? Why that particular generation, and not the one after, or before, or a century away?

Humans are naturally curious. On a cold night, they felt the warmth of the fire, and used it.

But the option is open, is it not? I'll assume you live near a deli. Or at least a grocery store with bread and sliced ham, and thus you could have produced a ham sandwich. But you say no, you absolutely could NOT have because your genes say so. In that case, nothing you've ever done in your life is your own action. You were forced to do it by--let's see--yourself. So you are basically following a stream of biological 100111010101001010101111000s. And if you say one really has no more control over their actions than experience and genes, they aren't much more than organic mush and a bunch of 100111010101001010101111000s, are they?

Oh, yes. In that sense, "destiny exists". Everything we do is predetermined by our genes and experience, which in turn, affect the experiences of other people, and so on and so forth.

All right, I'll accept that. But it's really not going to hold up in court. "Everything about myself made me do it; I'm not really responsible for myself."

Of course it isn't, but that matters little, as the only thing the court decides is whether you did it or not.

 

[CK the Fat]

"Making him a tool, and escape, not a person you love."

But he's still present in times of need, is he not?

"Humans are naturally curious. On a cold night, they felt the warmth of the fire, and used it."

Not only did they use it, though, but REPRODUCED it.

"Oh, yes. In that sense, "destiny exists". Everything we do is predetermined by our genes and experience, which in turn, affect the experiences of other people, and so on and so forth."

So where exactly do you draw the line between you as your collective body or as your millions of cells working apart from one another? Where do you draw the line between what YOU do and what the cells in you do?

 

[Phoenix]

But he's still present in times of need, is he not?

Yes, as a tool.

It's like the girl that comes to her best (guy) friend to cry all day about the jerky boyfriend, then returns to him, and doesn't even sleep with you.

Not only did they use it, though, but REPRODUCED it.

And? At the beginning, it was simply about keeping it alive. It probably took them a while to reproduce it on their own.

It was an invention. An invention is the combination of known discoveries into a new one.

So where exactly do you draw the line between you as your collective body or as your millions of cells working apart from one another? Where do you draw the line between what YOU do and what the cells in you do?

What line? Every action I take is the consequence and cause of every single living cell in my body. and they don't work apart. They work toward a specific function that allows me to survive, think and feel.

 

[CK the Fat]

"And? At the beginning, it was simply about keeping it alive. It probably took them a while to reproduce it on their own."

And I don't think man had much lightning to use, did they?

"It was an invention. An invention is the combination of known discoveries into a new one."

Isn't an invention defined as something new? And if it's new it can't be just a bunch of experiences put together, because even putting them together is creating something new, and thus, an original idea.

If you want to debate exactly HOW original the idea is, go ahead, that's philosophy.

 

[Phoenix]

And I don't think man had much lightning to use, did they?

... what? Put stick to fire, keep it alive. Where does lightning come in?

Isn't an invention defined as something new? And if it's new it can't be just a bunch of experiences put together, because even putting them together is creating something new, and thus, an original idea.

Something new with old knowledge. It's a combination of old knowledge, and it's your experiences with this knowledge that allows you to create it.

 

[CK the Fat]

"... what? Put stick to fire, keep it alive. Where does lightning come in?"

Inevitably the fire would have gone out, though, wouldn't it? So they had to make new fire, and they couldn't recreate the lightning from the sky that started the fire in the first place.

"Something new"

And thus an original idea.

'with old knowledge. It's a combination of old knowledge, and it's your experiences with this knowledge that allows you to create it."

A car is only made into a car once all the components come together... heaps of metal, rubber, and plastic by themselves don't make a car.

 

[Square Ninja]

A car is only made into a car once all the components come together... heaps of metal, rubber, and plastic by themselves don't make a car.

This makes no sense.

25 characters? 1.21 GIGAWATTS?!

 

[CK the Fat]

"This makes no sense.

25 characters? 1.21 GIGAWATTS?!"

Um... what?

 

[Square Ninja]

"This makes no sense.

25 characters? 1.21 GIGAWATTS?!"

Um... what?

What you posted made no sense in the context of the discussion. The characters and gigawatts were filler.

 

[CK the Fat]

We were debating whether something is new or not. I was saying that a bunch of materials put together makes something new; Phoenix says that it is not new since it is just a combination of old material.

My car example was saying that we don't consider a heap of metal, gasoline, and rubber a car. What we consider is a new item, an automobile made out of the listed materials, and thus a new creation (or at least organization.)

Not sure why that's so out of context...

 

[Phoenix]

Ooh, I forgot about this thread.

We give the automobile a new name and classification because it looks now to *us*, but it's just a combination of the old. Right down to the individual protons, neutrons and electrons.

 

[CK the Fat]

But before mankind there was no such thing as a car, and therefore a car had to be invented, which means at one point it was new.

It's like saying you aren't a human, pheonix, because you're esentially just a bunch of rocks and water.

 

[Geocillin]

You know, I've been wondering. A lot of religions thing that children who die automatically go to Heaven. If this is true, why don't parents kill their children? They'd be rewarding them with an eternity of bliss!

I know, some of you will say "But Phoenix, wouldn't we go to hell then?!". Well, if you were really loving parents, you wouldn't care about what happens to you as long as your child is safe, healthy and happy.

So I ask again: why aren't we out there killing children and sending them to Heaven?

One plausible reason why we don't go off killing babies is because what would be the point in producing life, if we're just going to kill it prematurely. There' d be no point in reproduction. Also, as a society, we'd eventually become extinct. We only think of our survival, well most do. So, eliminating our future would be against human nature.

Also, the baby should have a choice in whether to go to heaven or hell. It's called free will. A child might want to go to heaven, because it seems like a nice place, but a masocist might like hell, because you suffer alot. If you take a baby's life, you're taking it's decision to go to heaven or hell. Also, your assuming that the baby will be rotten. we don't know if the baby will go to heaven nor to hell. Maybe everyone goes to heaven, and hell is just some concept thrown out there. I mean, the baby deserves to live and make thier own choices rather than the parents controlling thier destiny.

 

[Phoenix]

But before mankind there was no such thing as a car, and therefore a car had to be invented, which means at one point it was new.

I don't deny it's an invention. What I deny it's that it's new in principle. The combination may have just been discovered, but it's still the old materials doing what they always do, only this time, together. It's still just a bunch of atoms moving. How we perceive this, however, is new.

It's like saying you aren't a human, pheonix, because you're esentially just a bunch of rocks and water.

Are you denying we are essentially atoms?

One plausible reason why we don't go off killing babies is because what would be the point in producing life, if we're just going to kill it prematurely. There' d be no point in reproduction. Also, as a society, we'd eventually become extinct. We only think of our survival, well most do. So, eliminating our future would be against human nature.

Umm, hi. If you're killing *your* son only, then the human race doesn't die.

Also, the baby should have a choice in whether to go to heaven or hell. It's called free will. A child might want to go to heaven, because it seems like a nice place, but a masocist might like hell, because you suffer alot. If you take a baby's life, you're taking it's decision to go to heaven or hell. Also, your assuming that the baby will be rotten. we don't know if the baby will go to heaven nor to hell. Maybe everyone goes to heaven, and hell is just some concept thrown out there. I mean, the baby deserves to live and make thier own choices rather than the parents controlling thier destiny.

Again, hypocrisy. That's like saying parents should let their children drink detergents because they have free will.

 

[Geocillin]

Obviously, rules are set down. There are rules in society against killing, but i was just using an example. Children have free will, but they must accept the consequences bestowed upon them. Of course parents might "try" to control children by saying don't drink, but they're only trying to influence thier choice, not make the choice for them. This is totally different, because you're giving the consequences of your actions to your child, which will lead to your child making a logical decision. If your child drinks, then it's thier fault for not listening to you. Again, your child has free will, but we influence that free will with information on the consequences of thier actions. This is not hypocrisy, it's just that you think parents "control" thier children, when infact they merely influence thier decisions by telling the consequences or invoke fear to prevent them from doing it. They both have free will, the parent having the free will to punish a child doing wrong. the child can still do wrong, even if it gets a warning not to do it.

 

[Phoenix]

Obviously, rules are set down. There are rules in society against killing, but i was just using an example. Children have free will, but they must accept the consequences bestowed upon them. Of course parents might "try" to control children by saying don't drink, but they're only trying to influence thier choice, not make the choice for them.

What? When I tried to drink chlorine, my mom took it away from me, slapped me, and put it in a hard-to-reach place. And so do all parents who see the kid doing dangerous stuff.

This is totally different, because you're giving the consequences of your actions to your child, which will lead to your child making a logical decision. If your child drinks, then it's thier fault for not listening to you. Again, your child has free will, but we influence that free will with information on the consequences of thier actions. This is not hypocrisy, it's just that you think parents "control" thier children, when infact they merely influence thier decisions by telling the consequences or invoke fear to prevent them from doing it. They both have free will, the parent having the free will to punish a child doing wrong. the child can still do wrong, even if it gets a warning not to do it.

Then allow me to ask why does the government not let people commit suicide? And why is euthanasia illegal?