Mr_Clockwork91

That's what desire is. The need for what we can't have. The need for what's readily available is called greed.

2625 0 23 17
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Mr_Clockwork91's forum posts

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mr_clockwork91:

1.) Yes.....and God could have made us exist and not exist at the same time. Make up your mind. Either free will comes with all its baggage or it's not free will in the first place.

What does existence have to do with this? You assume having free will comes with baggage. I can have the free will to decide between doing good and doing good.

2.) Uh? Okay.....well, people lie. Is that not a sin to you? It is also very easy to imagine how natural disasters come into effect because it depends on the planetary conditions. And what about bacteria? Are you saying you are unaware that there is useful bacteria in your own gut?

I don't what this sin is. Lying is an immoral act, but it hardly shows that it is a sin. Lying could be a good thing. There is, but there is also bad bacteria. Did harmful bacteria not exist until we ate from the tree? Again, you're playing mental gymnastics here.

3.) And this highlights where your problem originates from: you are judging things by your own perspective alone and expect everything else to line up with it. Death may be good to you, but it is evil to God, and it seems that he doesn't take your opinion into consideration for that. Your enemies are also not evil because you are not a wholly good person, but if God were indeed perfectly good, then all his enemies would be by definition evil.

Oh so you know Gods perspective? Hmm, I don't see how that all his enemies would be evil. And what a false dilemma you have made here, my enemies are not evil because I'm not wholly good? So the leader of ISIS is not evil because I'm not wholly good? That is by far the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

4.) You do have something to compare it, the creator itself. The "good" value comes from something's likeness to the originator. So things that are not like the creator would be the opposite.

You put yourself in circle here; How do I know value X is good? Your answer; compare it to Y. How do I know Y is good? Compare it to Y.

5.) Um no, because if there is nothing else aside from "you", then there is nothing external to you. When the creator creates something, it derives directly from the creator and is judged after-the-fact. The cannot be any a priori judgement because there was simply nothing prior to it.

Ok so he creates something and calls it good, how do we know that this goodness is what we know as good? And the evil we perceive is actually evil? This creator would have to be determined to be good externally or this creator creates this thing as good because he sees value of goodness in of itself. Still it shows that goodness is external to the creator.

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mr_clockwork91 said:
@blacklegraph said:

@lordraiden: @lordraiden: Now it as morphed to the same old problem of free will. God created humans with free will. They decided to disobey God, and sure he could just override them, but that renders it pointless.

God decided free will is good despite what humans decide to do with it. It indicates that God sees doing good of one's will as better than mindlessly doing so.

As for the standard of evil, believing evil exists means that you think a standard for good exists, and goodness is a measure set by the originator of all things. Without that standard, good and evil become meaningless. Seeing evil as a problem indicates that one believes such a standard exists, otherwise anything that happens is simply an "event" with no value.

God could have very well made a world where we couldnt murder each other, this world would be logically consistent. God could make us with the ability to choose between good and good. Isn't that what heaven is supposed to be about? The ability to not do evil?

Hmm, what is the standard for evil? What is the standard for good? If goodness is a measure set by the originator of all things, then it follows whatever that originator does, is good. So everything in this world that naturally occurs, is good. (Tornadoes, disease, death,) I'm not sure you want to go down that path.

Why does the originator choose this good? It shows that whatever this goodness is, is external to the originator.

Yes, God could have made us robots. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that already.

Strawman: I never said God could have made us robots. Merely that God could of given us free will but not the ability to murder each other.

Also, tornadoes, disease, death etc are a consequence of sin. This is mentioned in the very first book. Everything created before that (light, sky, creatures etc) were called "good."

Prove to me sin exists. It makes no sense for a creator to make a natural world with sky and light and creatures but to have no tornadoes, disease, death. You are not being honest here, so did bacteria just happen to enter the world as soon as we ate from the tree? It seems to me you are doing some mental gymnastics here.

Death on the other hand was certainly not called "good," and is actually called the final enemy to be defeated. God viewing death as an enemy can hardly mean he considers it good.

Death can be viewed as good or bad, but it doesn't follow that enemy is evil. Enemy=/=Evil. I view SJW's as an enemy to free speech but I dont view them as evil.

And the originator of all things sets the standard because "good" is a value assigned based on the likeness that something bears to that originator. It's creative will is what gives value to anything.

Again, how can you call it good when you have nothing to compare it too? And if a value is assigned good, why is the creator assigning it that way? Why choose that specific way? What is the good?

There cannot be goodness external of the originator because there is nothing without the originator. Something that doesn't exist can have no value. And the originator doesn't 'choose" it, the originator sets it in relation to the originator's own properties.

Saying you set it in relation to your own property is still saying it's external to you. You can't be relative to nothing outside.

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@lordraiden: @lordraiden: Now it as morphed to the same old problem of free will. God created humans with free will. They decided to disobey God, and sure he could just override them, but that renders it pointless.

God decided free will is good despite what humans decide to do with it. It indicates that God sees doing good of one's will as better than mindlessly doing so.

As for the standard of evil, believing evil exists means that you think a standard for good exists, and goodness is a measure set by the originator of all things. Without that standard, good and evil become meaningless. Seeing evil as a problem indicates that one believes such a standard exists, otherwise anything that happens is simply an "event" with no value.

God could have very well made a world where we couldnt murder each other, this world would be logically consistent. God could make us with the ability to choose between good and good. Isn't that what heaven is supposed to be about? The ability to not do evil?

Hmm, what is the standard for evil? What is the standard for good? If goodness is a measure set by the originator of all things, then it follows whatever that originator does, is good. So everything in this world that naturally occurs, is good. (Tornadoes, disease, death,) I'm not sure you want to go down that path.

Why does the originator choose this good? It shows that whatever this goodness is, is external to the originator.

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@asgardianbrony:

"@mr_clockwork91 said:

@asgardianbrony: If your standard of documentation that what cable said is enough to warrant the supernatural Jesus' existence, then you must also be willing to accept other supernatural figures as well if you are consistent in your methodology.

its a fact Jesus the man existed, to deny it shows you to be a fool, now if you are speaking about Jesus the God then there is also proof of that.

Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies of the messiah which number over 100. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html

His apostles and followers kept the faith for decades under some of the worst persecution in history.

I also do accept other supernatural figures like as I believe most religions have a grain of truth in them concerning their history."

A historical man named jesus more than likely did exist, but there is hardly any proof that he is god.

No Jesus did not fulfill all the prophecies, you ever talk to a Jewish scholar? There are many reasons why jewish people do not accept the claims of jesus. http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

If you accept other supernatural figures, you would be violating one of your 10 commandments and would also have to accept the claims of other religion which you can't do. Krishna, Judaism, Christainity and sathya sai baba can't all be the one true divine entity.

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By Mr_Clockwork91

@asgardianbrony: If your standard of documentation that what cable said is enough to warrant the supernatural Jesus' existence, then you must also be willing to accept other supernatural figures as well if you are consistent in your methodology.

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@spareheadone said:

@willpayton:

What is "scientism"?

Should we avoid it?

If so, how?

Well, Wikipedia talks about it. I suppose it depends on what you mean by it. Personally I've never come across the term in the fields of science or technology. But, I'd generally agree with the description that Wikipedia has for it... namely that science is the best way we have to find out reliable knowledge about the universe. Most of the criticism of "scientism" that I see is from philosophy or religion types, who seem to want to insist that they can come up with knowledge without bothering with actually observing or testing it in reality. To me that's just a recipe for self-deception.

It really depends on what one means by scientism, I would agree that science is the best way we have to find out about reliable knowledge about the universe, now if you hold science to be the highest authority on anything, I would disagree. Science can't tell me if a business has the right to employ affirmative action or if I should go fight in a war for my country to fulfill my civic duty over caring for my dying grandma.

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Matrix was getting pooed on when it first came out. Now look at it.

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@lawz said:
@sl-wopr said:

Hmmm, this year: BvS - good, CW - fail, X-Men - good.

Critics: BvS - fail, CW - good, X-Men - fail.

So the chances SS is good are pretty damn high!

Apocalypse got lackluster reviews. You're in the dramatic minority if you thought Civil War was bad.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/x_men_apocalypse/?search=x-men:%20apo

CW wasnt that great, yet it received high praise. BvS was decent but was trash according to critics.