Why must Jesus be a white man?

[Ninja_Sher]

How about 0th dimension. We all know something div by 0 is infinite, it exists but we can not estimate and hence can not see or feel individiually.

[GUNWOUNDS]

How about 0th dimension. We all know something div by 0 is infinite, it exists but we can not estimate and hence can not see or feel individiually.

Zero Dimension is simply a point.

[Wolf]

No wonder many modern physicists are turning to philosophy and vice versa...

[Acriku]

I find computer scientists more often are the philosophers.

[Wolf]

Yes, Ray Kurzweil springs to mind.

[nemafakei]

By the very definition of a dimension, we exist in all of them. Can a square actually exist? No, because it is of 0 depth. Can a cube exist? No, because it is of 0 duration. Can a '4d cube' exist? No, because it has no span in whatever you want to call dimension No. 5. It has been proven that there are at least 11 dimensions. We exist in all of them - but only the first four are really of any relevance to us as we perceive the universe.

[Wolf]

So, I wonder if the Gunwounds analogy still holds true?

[GUNWOUNDS]

So, I wonder if the Gunwounds analogy still holds true?

The 11 dimensions he speaks of make up what we take for granted as the "3rd dimension"

[nemafakei]

"i am not talking about the dimensions that make up this universe... i am talking about extra-dimensional dimensions if that makes any sense."

Ah, I know them. The convenient ones, like the ones on which ghosts and aliens and WMDs live.

[TMA_1]

lol, good one nema. ;)

[Tio_Holtzmann]

what was that thing i heard.....no truly 2D entity could ever have an alimentary canal or any kind of body systems used by a "3D" organism, cos it'd be cut into two or more parts.  funky.

[Acriku]

"i am not talking about the dimensions that make up this universe... i am talking about extra-dimensional dimensions if that makes any sense."

Ah, I know them. The convenient ones, like the ones on which ghosts and aliens and WMDs live.

Creativity does not come with prerequisited knowledge.

[GUNWOUNDS]

wow

[Acriku]

Well consider it from a nonbeliever's perspective: you're presenting your case, and your support is the imaginative extra-dimensional dimensions where your god resides. That would strike a dead man as convenient for your case.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well consider it from a nonbeliever's perspective: you're presenting your case, and your support is the imaginative extra-dimensional dimensions where your god resides. That would strike a dead man as convenient for your case.

Uh.. oh i see the problem.... you think that i am claiming my God lives here...

well i dont have the faintest clue.... and i am certainly not offering it up as proof.  I am merely discussing it for fun.

Its not like this is my doctrine or something.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Also i view my God as metaphysical.... and i presume his "place of residence" is metaphysical as well.

what is a metaphysical residence? ... hyperspace? .. who knows? any discussion of such a thing will not be "scientific" so its safe to say you can turn off your radar for once and have a little fun.

I dont go pissing on your parade when you speak about a "Frozen" God now do I ? No... i talk it out with you and try to see what you are saying instead of unzipping my pants and pissing on you saying  "oh thats a shit idea"....

[SurlyPIG]

Well I've been out of this thread for a while but I'll try to pick up where I left off.  Wolfwiz and Gunwounds:

Think about it like this. You have the choice to respond to my post or not to. God knows the choice you're going to make. But you don't. In fact, you know that if you decide, and suddenly change your mind, God would have known that to. But you didn't know it. Right know, you, personally, have no idea exactly, 100% what you will choose. That's free will. And we have it by not knowing everything, and by living only in the present moment.

Where you people got the idea that God knowing everything necessitated a lack of free will, I will never understand. Too much neo-sci-fi stuff, stick to the classics.

Omniscience does not necessitate free will, but when it is applied to a being that supposedly created everything, starting every chain of events, free will suddenly isn't free anymore.  It then becomes manipulated will, for lack of a better term.  Let me explain (the Matrix reference was there for a reason).

Remember the part in The Matrix Revolutions where all the Smiths get into the Oracle's apartment?  The lead Smith says something cheesy about being all-knowing then picks a plate of cookies off the table and throws them against the wall and says something like, "Did you know I was going to do that?  If you did, it means you baked the cookies and put them there on purpose, and if that's true, you're here now, purposefully."

If Bob goes climbing and a hold breaks off and he falls to his death, God is actively and totally responsible for Bob's death, assuming he is omniscient and the creator of the universe.  God designed the universe in such a way that the tectonic plates of Earth formed mountains that he knew Bob would climb, and made the atmosphere of Earth in such a way that the rock face of the mountain Bob was climbing would be eroded to the point that the part of the rock face he knew Bob would reach for would be weak enough to break under Bob's weight.

If God is omniscient and outside of time, completely aware of everything that will occur in the natural world, and completely aware of every decision every person at different points in time will make, then God is responsible for everything that occurs in the universe.  Even if there aren't any miracles this still must be true, assuming the above.  If God is totally aware of every decision I make, then he must be so for everything good or bad anyone does, whether it's Mother Theresa or Osama bin Laden, the Red Cross or the Third Reich because he designed a universe in which he was totally aware of the fact that they would exist and what they would do.

I don't think I'm explaining this very articulately (agent Smith does a better job) so you'll have to try just a little harder to understand exactly what I'm saying.  If anyone finds this offensive it's not meant to be so, this is just some of the stuff that flies through my head on any given day.  I honestly just prefer the idea of a passive God who merely creates, then frees; whose knowledge of this reality is limited by this reality, by things like time.  It isn't like I'm thinking "Well God must be responsible for all this stuff so I'll just not believe in Him."

[TagDaze]

Bob's story

True, but Bob is a stupid mouthbreather who should've watched where he put his damn limbs. I stick a knife in my belly. That's God's fault. I should've been made from steel. Oh, by the way, The Matrix sucks.

I think "seeing the future" is a wrong way to describe it. How about predicting it? I can predict there will be another post here. I don't see the future, but I know how people are. People see a subject that interests them, and respond to it. God knows how we all are. The way we think, so he can make a prediction what is going to happen. How far he can predict everything is beyond our imagination, as he knows our personalities, the way we think, the way our body changes, etc. For all you know there's a nasty growth in your body and you don't know jack shit about it, but you're gonna die.

[Wolf]

Any man can think himself to captivity. Free simply is. God's knowledge of the unvierse does not necessitate a lack of free will, or a lack of choice on our part. Mainly for the humanity existing in the present moment/God existing in everywhen argument, and the fact that human beings are incapable of perceiving the world as anything other than free will. Even if you deny the existence of free will, you still live as if you have it. There, I believe, is the greatest proof for its existence. Further, I do not like to argue from fiction. People might jump on me and say, "Oh, what about the Bible, huh? What now!" No, I do not argue from the Bible either, except for when I use Bible statements to relate to arguments built on other things, logic, for example. A metaphysical being who exists in a different temporal state than myself's knowledge of my life does not rob me of my free will. And even if it did, I would be unable to perceive it as anything else. My knowledge of you're life does not rob you of free will, does it? This argument does NOT need to revolve around God, and, in fact, it can be applied to spouses, friends, other people, anyone.

[Acriku]

Also i view my God as metaphysical.... and i presume his "place of residence" is metaphysical as well.

what is a metaphysical residence? ... hyperspace? .. who knows? any discussion of such a thing will not be "scientific" so its safe to say you can turn off your radar for once and have a little fun.

I dont go pissing on your parade when you speak about a "Frozen" God now do I ? No... i talk it out with you and try to see what you are saying instead of unzipping my pants and pissing on you saying  "oh thats a shit idea"....

What good is a discussion if you don't want to stand by your own words and support them at the slightest hint of their rejection?

[GUNWOUNDS]

When talking about the stuff we are talking about

[SurlyPIG]

True, but Bob is a stupid mouthbreather who should've watched where he put his damn limbs. I stick a knife in my belly. That's God's fault. I should've been made from steel. Oh, by the way, The Matrix sucks.

Fault is a lousy way to describe it.  Fault implies that it was something bad that happened unintentionally.  Plan is a better word.

I think "seeing the future" is a wrong way to describe it. How about predicting it? I can predict there will be another post here. I don't see the future, but I know how people are. People see a subject that interests them, and respond to it. God knows how we all are. The way we think, so he can make a prediction what is going to happen. How far he can predict everything is beyond our imagination, as he knows our personalities, the way we think, the way our body changes, etc. For all you know there's a nasty growth in your body and you don't know jack shit about it, but you're gonna die.

This whole argument is based on the assumption that God is omniscient (all-knowing, not all-predicting).  Being omniscient means you know everything that occurs at ever possible moment, every movement of every particle, and every thought of every person.  All with certainty.  Assuming God is the creator of the universe, he knew everything that would happen in it, thus anything that happens is his will.

Any man can think himself to captivity. Free simply is. God's knowledge of the unvierse does not necessitate a lack of free will, or a lack of choice on our part. Mainly for the humanity existing in the present moment/God existing in everywhen argument, and the fact that human beings are incapable of perceiving the world as anything other than free will. Even if you deny the existence of free will, you still live as if you have it. There, I believe, is the greatest proof for its existence.

We may still have will, but if our will and everything that would shape it was created by a being omniscient of everything in all of time, then it ceases to be free and becomes God's will.  While the will to make our own decisions is still there, the freedom of it is an illusion.  Our free will, the decisions we make, would be the decisions God knew we would and wanted us to make.  We would merely be acting out a script written before our existence began.

Further, I do not like to argue from fiction. People might jump on me and say, "Oh, what about the Bible, huh? What now!" No, I do not argue from the Bible either, except for when I use Bible statements to relate to arguments built on other things, logic, for example.

It was an analogy, not my base argument.

A metaphysical being who exists in a different temporal state than myself's knowledge of my life does not rob me of my free will. And even if it did, I would be unable to perceive it as anything else. My knowledge of you're life does not rob you of free will, does it? This argument does NOT need to revolve around God, and, in fact, it can be applied to spouses, friends, other people, anyone.

First of all you're making the mistake in assuming that partial knowledge is the same as total knowledge.  As a finite person you can never predict anything or anyone with 100% accuracy.  Therefore, comparisons to spouses, friends or other people are flawed.  Second, I am not arguing that omniscience removes free will in general.  I'm arguing that omniscience removes free will (even though we would have no idea) when the one who's omniscient is the one who created everything and everyone in the natural universe.  This also makes comparisons to people flawed.

If God didn't want the humanity, the world, and the universe to be exactly as they are now, then He would have designed the them all to be different than they are, different than they were, and different than they are going to be.  Taken to a simpler level, if God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, He would have either made them different, or never have made the fruit in the first place.

[Acriku]

When talking about the stuff we are talking about ... no person is absolutely right.... there will always be some wrong in there somewhere  due to the fact that we dont know everything....

I dont mind someone rejecting a statement but honestly.... you have to ask yourself... why even join a discussion if you are going to be a chronic rejecter?

You're question is completely irrelevant because no one is chronically rejecting what you have to say.

Reminds me of two friends i have.

Friend #1  loves to discuss theoretical physics , dimensions, singularity, tachyon particles with negative mass.... etc .... you know the theoretical stuff you cant prove.

Friend #2 doesnt like to discuss it and laughs and thinks its geek shit and wants to go get a beer and watch TV.  I mean you cant even bring the subject up without him moaning and groaning about it.    Friend#1 and myself  thinks it sucks that Friend # 2 doesnt have an open mind and thinks anything that isnt natural is stupid.

1. This shouldn't remind you of those two friends because they are completely different from this situation. For you to imply that there is a link between me and friend #2 is completely idiotic. I made one statement that didn't even reject yours atleast directly, and you come out with your rediculous two friend story. Do you want me to say you are a victim of yet another anti-Christian attack and that I feel for you? Please.

My view is that if you are gonna be like Friend #2 .... just stay out of these threads.  Cause you are just an annoyance otherwise.  Thats my point plain and simple.  And the people i am referring to.... you know who you are.

Get over yourself.

[Wolf]

I respectfully disagree with ACE; we do not act out a script, as you say it. The term "acting out" means that we simply go through the motions of that which we know is a falsehood. This is not so, to us, we are incapable of perceiving our choices as anything other than free will. If God, a super-powerful government, or anything, knew our futures and in some way intervened in our lives, the same effect would happen. We would be left wondering whether or not each decision we made would not have been made without that interference; and the fact is that we can never know. Therefore, we can worry ourselves to death.

Two things about this, though. First, Heisenberg tells us that merely observing something changes it. God doesn't need to interfere in human affairs for this whole argument to occur, he only needs to watch. (This is why Deists believe God blinded himself to human affairs. That's another way to fix this free will problem.) Second, everything that happens in our lives influences are future, and we never know for sure to what extent the influence extends. It is not just God that robs us of our free will, it is the circumstances of our birth, our education, our childhoods, our meals, everything. Yet, we still perceive the world as one that allows us free will, and this seems to work. Intuitively, I feel that I have free will. I feel that I make choices. I am incapable of seeing my life as anything other than a life of free will. This is why it is also not an illusion; an illusion is an intangible trick. An illusion is not something that, when you are presented with the "truth", you still claim that the original illusion still feels correct. I understand what you are saying ACE, but not with how you say it. How you say it tacks on additional connotations and meanings which simply do not accurately mesh, in my view, with what goes on. I am sorry, I know that must be frustrating, but, remember that frustration in arguments works both ways.

EDIT: No, and I am not making the mistake of partial knowledge vs. full knowledge. That's just being nitpicky; the effects partial knowledge of the future have on us is just as oppressive as full knowledge is, if you want to think about it far enough. There are things in the world that we know 100% -- the government knew my social security number long before I did, and they knew it with 100% accuracy, for example. Further, let us look at genetics; this irrevocably changes us in some way. We do not know it fully, nor, by what you said -- our being incapable of 100% knowledge, which is true only most of the time -- is knowing anything fully even possible for us. The problem is that we don't need to know fully; we just need to have that possibility. If the possibility exists, then that is where our free will begins to break down. If the possibility exists for genetics to govern our lives, we will worry over that. This isn't an argument of real logic anymore, or about the definition of God, because logic and the experience of my life has taught me that life cannot be perceived as anything other than free will, no matter what Gods & governments know things about me that I don't, and as for the definition of God, that can change, we can debate that forever, and ever.

That, and omniscience of the Creator, shall we define your argument's crux, does not necessarily remove free will either; for the same reason as it is incapable for us to see the world as anything else, and others. Mainly, it is because that Creator exists in a different time of mind than do we, something I think it is safe to assume. Also, you make the assumption that God did what he wanted;

Taken to a simpler level, if God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, He would have either made them different, or never have made the fruit in the first place.

Where did you get the idea that God did what he wanted to happen? Maybe he did what he didn't want, or maybe he did what he thought was best for his creations. I think its all right to make assumptions about the nature of God, but trying to assume what he wants? That's getting a little edgy, even for me. Even then, so what if it was God, the Omniscient One, who created the universe? Our perception of free will is not destroyed, and as long as we exist in the present moment and presented with choices, we still make choices, whether or not they are preordained.

Besides, Oh Great Ace, He Who Knoweth The Wants of God (I know, I'm being an ass, but, c'mon, let me have some fun with it -- if it offends you, I'll stop), tell me what choice you will make that God has ordained for you that robs you of your choice? The fact is, we don't know what the future holds, and we must make that future as the present moment takes us there. That, combined with our eternal perception of free will, in my mind, pretty much solidifies my position here.

[Acriku]

It actually makes sense that God does what he wants, and whatever happens is what he wants. Think about it. He's the perfect being. He sees all consequences of his and everyone else's actions. Therefore, it's only logical that if what he does it right, then his perfect nature agrees with that action, and he truly wants it. If he regrets any action, or does something with any reluctance, then either he isn't perfect or his actions are not perfect. And if he truly is perfect, then his actions must be perfect, and therefore he cannot regret any action or do anything with reluctance. In summation, what he does and the consequences that he causes with his actions must be what he wants. This was a very quick rundown, so I haven't thought it through much, but it makes sense right now.