FINALLY, we're getting somewhere! From Armstrong's perspective, he DOES have free will and follows his choices to become an American icon. From God's perspective, it is a prewritten script since God is all-knowing. As far as mankind is concerned, we are following our FREE WILL. God's knowledge of the choices we will make has no bearing on what we choose to do today. Our future is God's past. Just like yesterday was my past. For example, at 7:30am yesterday morning I took a massive dump and ate a bowl of Grape Nuts. I got dressed and took the subway to my office on 49th and 5th Avenue. At 9:00am, I was at the secretary's desk, sharing jokes while ogling her ample cleavage. Fast forward to today. Looking back, did I have free will to eat Life cereal instead of Grape Nuts? Could I have skipped work? Could I have walked to work instead of taking the subway? Could I have taken a dump at the office? Could I have avoided the secretary's charms and gone straight to my desk or could I have pinched her well-rounded butt? Could I have punched my co-worker's lights out? YES to all. I don't believe that I was "forced" to follow yesterday's sequence of events. But since the events of yesterday are past, then from my perspective, my actions have become "pre-ordained" or pre-written. Well, this is the case with God. Our future is his past, so you could imply that our actions were "pre-ordained". But we can still choose what we will do tomorrow or at least we are operating under the ILLUSION that we can choose. It really doesn't matter how you define it since the result is the same. To summarize, we BELIEVE that we are in control of our actions. Maybe we ARE just actors in God's cosmic script. But as long as the illusion of free will exists, then this is an irrelevant condition and has no bearing on the choices we make. You're making some progress, Danny-boy! I'm proud of you! Maybe by your 1000th post, you'll admit the POSSIBILITY that God exists!
First of all, if I establish that something CAN happen, then it is not "unsupported." You keep throwing that around incorrectly! Secondly, I'm not muddying the waters. Your unicorns of very simple, imagined earthly beings. The idea that something extremely abstract might be responsible for the order in the universe is not an unreasonable notion. I have said it several times now, and I will say it again. I believe that I AM "bringing something to the table," because there have been many absolutes argued here, by both sides, that are faulty, and some erroneous arguments in general. I think addressing these is important (although obviously I have a cut off, since I'm not about to address every stupid think that, say, T-Dolt says). I'm sorry if arguing against incorrect absolutes and pointing out incomprehensibility of the universe "muddies the waters" for you. Apparently you want everything to fit into our neat little world.
Incorrect. Unicorns CAN exist, does this alone mean this is a supported notion? NO. 3 headed demons on mars CAN exist, does this alone mean its supported? NO. Just because something is a possibility does NOT mean its supported in ANY way. Supported by what? Do you have a shred of evidence? No you dont. You are the one throwing this idea around incorrectly. The idea is completely arbitrary and completely lacks evidence. peace axeman
I have supported not that they DO exist, but that they CAN exist. What is so hard to understand? However, unicorns and dragons are almost certainly human ideas of earthly creatures, very much within our realm of cognition (at least as they've been described) and very much observable. If an infinite being we would call God exists, it is incomprehensible and not observable (at least virtually all of God would be), however. Of course proof of God lacks evidence, just as proving God doesn't exist "lacks evidence." And? The idea that something infinite and extraordinarily abstract is responsible for the order of the universe is no more arbitrary then claiming that this does not exist.
I agree. The idea is as useless (part 1 of sentence) as attempting to prove a negative( 2nd part of sentence). peace axeman PS I just accidently LOST my LOOOONG reply to your other post Dont have the time to retype all that right now.
If I establish that something can happen, when someone challenges whether something can happen, then I have IN FACT SUPPORTED the claim that said something CAN happen. Nuff said! what's ambiguous. I said that many things very well can happen. I have described our limitations and the complexities of the universe, the vast majority of which we can't comprehend. what's the prob? The concept of an omniscient exceeds our realm, proven by the semantic arguments you play. Since if there is a God it exists outside of space and time (the possibility of which to SOME degree can be comprehended by math and science), the free will argument becomes a silly argument. And the fact that the universe is so complex and beyond our comprehension, the general concept that there may be some God, some underlying force that is (or virtually all of it is) beyond our comprehension, is reasonable. The idea of some fairy tale, earthling creatures playing human like star trek games is possible but unlikely (although the existence of other life in this universe, that may be very strange even, is extremely probable). The God of the bible could probably be called "mythical." But the concepts I've described is a serious concept in a universe that is far stranger and more abstract than anything in Star Trek (modern physics keeps demonstrating this). Not quite. Trying to prove the existence of God is useless. Recognizing the possibilities is not useless to anyone curious about the possible nature of the universe to the extent that we can comprehend it. I'll be around. Have a good weekend. Thanks for being respectful again.
another dreamer, wanting to have his cake and eat it too. if it's an ILLUSION, dimwit, it's not REAL. we don't REALLY have free will after all. answer this question shit for brains, could armstrong have EVER done ANYTHING THAT WOULD DISQUALIFY HIM FROM BEING AN ASTRONAUT? fuck no! there was never a possibility of this! NEVER. do you understand that? it is quite elementary. furthermore, like i said, armstrong was never ever in danger of personal harm befalling him, you know, things that would incapacitate him. he basically had divine protection. is that the way you think the world really works? goldenarm, you have either not read all of my clearly explained posts, or you do not understand them. i suspect it's the latter..
well, i would argue that it's proven, as far our rational faculty goes, that your conception of this unkown entity is IMpossible, insofar as it violates logic. but, as you keep saying, you won't except this contradiction because you think logic is insufficient. well, you really have nothing left to say then. there could be NOTHING that i, axe, or anyone could say to you that would cause you to change your mind; you'll simply duck back under the wall of incomprehensibility you've built up (and somehow think your position is supported by it). 'Boat, just come out of the closet and admit you believe in "god" already. it's pretty obvious to me that you keep the god idea alive as a way to make your life easier. that's fine. but at least have the guts to come out and admit it. and also come out and admit you're a creationist, you believe the universe was created. well, stop all the freakin ducking and dogding and answer the question axe through at you guys 200 pages ago : who created your creator? that's the one question that no theist has ever been, and will ever be able to answer. BOOM - the whole structure of creator believers comes crushing down. ancient religions were aware of this problem. they actually had stories explaining how their gods were created. of course, they always began with SOME god that was "always there". they couldn't find a way around this problem any more than the pretend "sophisticated arguments" of today's creationists. the posit a being existing in order to explain what exists, who requires no explanation for HIS existance, is UNreasonable to the highest degree. believe it's possible if you like, but you can no longer do so under the claim that "it's reasonable to believe it", cos it isn't.