I had an AIM conversation with a friend that gave me some things to think about. Sorry its so long but its an important subject. And without further ado!!

Me: my 12 yr old neighbor just tried to convert me ... he had a sunday school hw assignment
Colin: maybe you should listen to him lol
Me: yeah right hes a fanatic .. not into logical conversation.. i asked him how he new the bible was worth spending your whole life on. he says the bible is the word of god. i asked him how he knows that. he says its in the bible.
Colin: lol
Me: now if u can just feel it by faith or something thats cool
Me: but living yoru life for a 2000 yr old book
Me: i dont get it.
Me: i think that evolution can explain humans. when u get stoned u are happy. a chemical in your brain affects your mind. the voice in your head. however i think that religion and science dont have to be apart. i think there is probably some force behind the universe or something. . i think.. at least i hope that theres something beyond the science we know
Me: i just dont see how christianity is any different from another religion... i doubt any of the religions we have got it right.. organized religion = crap in my eyes
Colin: organized religion is crap
Colin: the bible says nothing about organized religion
Me: yeah
Colin: the bible says what it says all the orginizatino is man made
Colin: therefore it is crap
Me: so why do you place your faith in the bible rather than another religion .. its not like the bible is the ultimate guide of ideals and things u have.. i mean premaritual sex is a sin so why are u into it.. i dont have a problem with a god or faith or whatever just i dont see why christianity is any different from any other relgiion
Colin: Christianity is completley diffferent but you would have to read the bible to know that
Me: dude christ was crucified .. sucks for him.. so were thousands of other people
Colin: yes
Me: ive read ... parts of the bible and ive had this arguement before with others
Colin: thousands of other people were cruicified
Colin: you know whats different
Colin: between thousands of other people and christ?
Me: yeah christ= son of god
Me: but god loves everyone
Colin: no
Colin: that is not the difference
Me: what then
Colin: christ never broke god's commandment
Colin: the 10 commandments
Colin: he never broke the rules
Colin: he was perfect and therefore never deserved to die
Colin: the others were sinners they broke the rules frequently
Colin: they deserved to die
Colin: heres the deal
Colin: before christ was crusified
Me: oh yeah thats another BS thing i dont like about judaism and christianity, how am i a sinner just from being born, why do i deserve eternal torment just from bein born
Me: kind of unfair
Colin: not just for being born
Colin: you have sinned
Me: i dont wanna worship someone id rather have a friend than a lord
Colin: dude
Colin: you have broken the rules so you deserve to spend eternity in hell, that is a fact assuming christianity is true
Me: yeah being born is original sin
Colin: yes however
Colin: what do you think babtism is for
Colin: why do you think parents babtize their babys
Me: i have no idea
Me: cause they are required to by religion
Colin: because it clears original sin
Colin: no they arent required to
Me: and if they dont the kid goes to hell
Colin: many people wait until they are old enuogh to make a decision to get babtized
Me: yeah
Me: Dude i believe or at least hope that there is a force or god or something .. but .. i dont see how christianity is right .. whats that stuff about heaven and hell ..
Colin: hell isnt a bunch of fire dude
Colin: its not a bunch of fire with a big horned thing whipping you
Colin: that is bull ****
Colin: hell is eternity away from God
Me: its in the bible
Me: that its a lake of fire
Colin: err
Colin: floating in a void
Colin: for eternity
Colin: DUDE
Colin: OK
Colin: have you listend to some of the things jesus says in the bible?
Colin: (RHETORICAL)
Me: again i understand how that could be a metaphor
Colin: yes
Colin: it is dude
Colin: so what is your point then?
Colin: do you think the bible really says the world was made in 7 DAYS?
Me: jesus was just another dude with a following to me.
Me: i dont see any evidence he was the son of god or that any of the stuff he said was true
Me: thats what
Me: like i said i think theres something but i dont see why christianity is it.
Colin: Do you see evidence that columbus visited america?
Me: u dont see evidence of JESUS
Me: except in the bible
Colin: stop talking **** about christianity until you get some knowledge in your head
Me: so you read the bible and decided you agree with the message of christianity?
Colin: yes
Me: which is?
Colin: There is a God and he got lonley
Colin: he made the universe
Colin: he made man
Colin: He loved the men he created
Colin: just like you would love a beautiful work of art you spent a VERRRRY long time on
Colin: but he loved justice more
Colin: he decided if he was going to say somthing that he would follow up with it--to the letter
Colin: he desined the world to be a really happy place for humans
Colin: you know
Colin: garden of eden
Colin: he gave them 1 rule
Colin: thats it
Colin: dont eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil
Colin: which is a METAPHOR incase you were wondering
Colin: so is the garden of eden.
Colin: so, humans broke that rule
Colin: god kicked them out of the garden
Colin: not as punishment
Colin: but because he was afraid they would also eat of the tree of life
Colin: which would make them live forever in their now corrupted and miserable state they had made themselves in
Colin: think about it why didnt communism work?
Colin: because by nature humans are lazy and greedy and generally bad
Colin: if humans were perfect communism would work fine
Colin: going on
Colin: god left them to themselves for some time
Colin: during the time between god kicking out from eden and before the 10 commandments
Colin: all humans went to hell
Colin: I believe
Colin: I could be wrong
Colin: but that is not the point
Colin: during this time the world was really bad
Colin: daughters got their fathers drunk so that they could have sex with them
Colin: etcetera
Colin: then god decided he would give humans a way to get to heaven
Colin: heaven being spending eternity with god
Colin: not some cloud ****
Colin: that went on
Colin: but nobody could follow the 10 commandments
Colin: not a single person to this day
Colin: has lived their life following all the commandments
Colin: except jesus
Me: its kind of physically impossible not to, say, lust
Colin: exactly
Colin: it is not impossible
Colin: but it is near it
Colin: for us
Colin: now
Colin: god didnt want this
Colin: he sat back
Colin: and thought to himself
Colin: I love justice but I dont want to see all my creations go to hell
Colin: what should I do?
Colin: for any human this would be an impossible question pretty much
Colin: but god know what had to be done
Colin: according to the laws of judaism
Colin: people sacrificed sheep to atone for their sins
Colin: as a way of paying for it
Colin: but it was never enough
Colin: because someone has to pay for it since god is the god of justice
Colin: he cant just say oh ok np
Me: yeah i dont understand that why would killing something pay for killing someone
Colin: because
Colin: that sheep is part of your flock
Me: are you transfering your sins to the sheep or something
Colin: you could use that sheep
Colin: for your own gain
Colin: but instead you are sacrificing it because you are sorry for your sins and are making yourself suffer for them
Me: ok
Colin: they were punishing themselves
Colin: but it was hardly ever enough
Colin: and corruption ran rampant as corruption tends to do amoung humans
Colin: so
Colin: god said
Colin: someone has to pay for this mess
Colin: because I am the god of justice
Colin: so
Colin: he said
Colin: This is so much mess there has to be one hell of a sacrifice for this
Colin: in fact, it was such a mess there was nothing that would suffice for it except somthing utterly and completley perfect
Colin: somthing perfect in every way can suffice for all this ****
Colin: and since god spans all time 'all this ****' is the sins of eternity
Colin: so he sent the only person who could be perfect
Colin: his 'son'
Colin: his son is actually jsut another facet of his being
Colin: it is not actually his son
Colin: he sent his son
Colin: in the garden of Gessimine
Colin: he said
Colin: a few hours before he was crucified Jesus said "Father if there be a way, please let this cup pass from me, but thy will, not mine, be done."
Colin: in that 'cup' was the sin of the entire world
Colin: all the sodomy
Colin: all the incest
Colin: all the rape
Colin: all the murder
Colin: the gasing of the jews
Colin: the genoicide of thousands of people
Colin: that is what he was drinking
Colin: all the ****ed up ness of this world
Colin: he had to take that upon himself as if HE HIMSELF had done EVERY SIN EVER COMMITTED
Colin: when he died, christ didnt go to heaven
Colin: he went to hell along with every sin you will every commit
Colin: he went to hell with the sins of hitler
Colin: everything
Colin: Christ went to hell and in hell he gave everyone there a chance to come to heaven since they didnt have the benefit of him
Colin: christ ddint go to hell for 3 days
Colin: he went to hell for eternity
Colin: but since god transcends time
Colin: in 3 days he rose again
Colin: he could have risen again instantly, he could have risen again 100 years later, he chose 3 because of the father, the son, and the holy ghost, the 3 facets of god's existance
Colin: now
Colin: since all our sins are taken away techinicaly
Colin: all we have to do is say we are sorry
Colin: sorry for breaking the rules
Colin: and god will say OK since you have payed for it I accept
Colin: even though you didnt pay for it christ payed for it in your name
Colin: its like a blank check to all the sins you want, as long as you HONESTLY are sorry for doin them
Colin: just say
Colin: God i ****ed up and im sorry
Colin: I am a stupid person
Colin: I cant follow 10 ****ing rules
Colin: I am a moron
Colin: please forgive me
Colin: and poof
Colin: if you died right then
Colin: you would go to heaven
…
Me: hey why are some people ****ed over sometimes then, like a kid who is born in uganda and has never heard of christ who starves to death at age 8
Colin: because
Colin: he died
Colin: because other people
Colin: err
Colin: l;emme rephrase
Colin: he went to hell when he died because other people didnt do their job
Me: yeah that sucks for him i guess.. eternal torment for no good reason
Colin: afran children wouldnt be starving if people followed the 10 commandments and he would have heard of jesus if all christians woul dhave been trying to convert more like the bible says
Me: i dunno if someone doesnt even have a chance at salvation
Me: that kind of blows
Colin: well it sucks that someone has to be murdered
Colin: its not gods fault he has done his job he has done what he said he'd do
Colin: its the person who murdered that person's fault
Me: yes but if they are christian they go to heaven .. and.. yeah its their fault
Me: but the person who doesnt know of jesus doesnt have a chance
Me: the african
Colin: that is why missionarys go out and spread the word to places like africa
Colin: so that wont happen
Me: yeah they are trying but god needs to help em out then
Colin: why?
Colin: god did his job
Colin: its our mess
Me: cause hes sending people to hell for no reason ..
Me: he didnt give them a chance
Colin: he isnt sending them to hell
Colin: what is hell?
Colin: hell is just eternity without god
Colin: there is no fire
Colin: it is darkness
Me: ok
Colin: god cant accept you into his house if he doesnt know you
Colin: he has done everything he needs to do to assure that everyone meets him
Colin: its our job to make sure that happens
Colin: but since humans are ****ing turds and are ****ty and cant do anything right
Colin: some of us starve and spend eternity without god because of other people being stupid
Me: god seems like a ****up sometimes then, he shouldnt have made someone at all if he knows they wont even get the chance to join him
Colin: he didnt make him
Colin: his parents made him
Colin: it is the world's christians fault that african children goes to hell
Colin: the blood is on their hands
If you've read this far you get a cookie.
Me: hmm
Me: a murdered person could go to heaven but the african cant i think the blame falls partly with god in that case
Me: i dunno
Colin: a murdered person COULD go to heaven
Colin: it depends on what they believe and who they are
Me: yeah
Colin: just like the african child COULD go to heaven
Colin: it depends on what he believes when he dies
Colin: not gods fault noone has told him about it
Colin: its the peoples fault for not telling him about it
Me: i think god could do a better job spreading the word then.
Me: if everything is by him
Colin: its not gods job to spread the word. He has told us what to do if we dont do it it is our fault
Colin: if everyone did exactly what god said and never broke the rules there would be noone that went to hell
Colin: therefore it is our fault that some people go to hell
Colin: god does influence things
Me: i guess if humans have free will
Me: then they have some power
Colin: yes
Colin: exaclty
…
Colin: if there was no evil how could there be good
Colin: if there was no evil the only choiuce we would have woudl be to be good, and being good is to not be bad by choice, if there is no bad we have no choice therefore there is no good
Me: there could be good because of the absense of evil. i hate it when people say that you need good for evil cause you dont
Colin: if there was no evil
Colin: then we would be existing
Colin: we would be mindless happy drones
Colin: we have to have a choice to do evil
Colin: or we can not be truly good since good is deciding not to take the path of evil
Colin: if ther eis no path of evil you cant decide not to take it
Colin: therefore you cant be good
Me: then b4 the tree of knowledge there was no good and evil but that was better than now
Colin: no, there was good and evil
Colin: humans still had the choice to choose between good (being happy and doing what god said) and evil (eating from the tree)
Colin: they choise evil

Just read alittle, but about Christianty being like other religions.
Look at the major religions of today. Did any of them claim to be the Son of God?

What does that have to do with anything? God didn't actually bang anyone; Jesus is another facet of God.

Originally posted by Kinnopio?
What does that have to do with anything? God didn't actually bang anyone; Jesus is another facet of God.

I said I only read the beginning.

Me: my 12 yr old neighbor just tried to convert me ...
That sucks. You're not supposed to convert someone in the year of 2003. Letting yourself be converted by studying? Heh, been there, done that. Converting someone else? Heck no. But okay, he's just 12, just laugh it off friend :D.
Me: yeah right hes a fanatic .. not into logical conversation.. i asked him how he new the bible was worth spending your whole life on.
Actually, if you look away from the theories about what happens when you die, you'll find that most religions are mostly preaching a good way of life. Christianity, for example, tells you to be nice, not to steal, not to be envious. That is, be grateful for what you have. Buddhism and Islam are essentially very similar.

So yes, if you like the way of life your religion suggests to you, follow it. However, common sense must come first. Prosecuting a girl for loving another girl because the Bible says so is way out of line.

I'll read the rest of the conversation now.

"Colin: he went to hell when he died because other people didnt do their job"


Man, your friend has some weird idea on religion. 'Bout half of it sounded like catholic dogma, and the other half sounded like the bastard child of catholic dogma and non-denominational stuff. And his obsession with the ten commandments. I'm pretty sure my head would have exploded about halfway through that conversation if it was me.


Even the way he explains, having a relationship with god seems about as weird and creepy as having a "relationship" with your dad's boyfriend.

What is the tree of knowledge exactly? Knowledge of what?

Good and evil? If so, is it then not only fair that humans ate from this tree? God wanted to keep Man in the dark, ignorant of morals, to "secure" his creation as slaves to God (Colin: being good and doing what god said).

I have a dog. No one can deny that the dog is happy with me, given that its fed and treated well. But it cannot run away - oh no, that's sinning and being disobedient. Is the tree of knowledge then, for the dog to know that the unbreakable rules it must abide by are nothing more than parameters set by me?
But of course, to the dog, these parameters are everything. The dog does not grasp that it's being used as company for a lonely human who needs someone to love. And love the dog I do, no question there. And the dog loves me, in return.

But is it fair? The dog is being kept in the dark with regards to its position. I'm using it, and while we're both happy with the current relationship, one of us knows the bigger picture, and one of us do not.

Yet it is imperative that my dog does not gain knowledge of this. It'd still love me if it did, as it has been taught this from since it can remember, and cannot imagine a world without me. But it might begin to wonder. It might start to wonder why I needed to be there in the first place. Why was it taken, like all the other puppies from its mother, and placed with me. Why did I need to fill so much in its life? Why could it not run free with all the other dogs, oblivious to my existance and constructed morals.

The question of God begins and ends with "why" - why does there need to be a god in the first place? The rest of the Bible is logic to a certain degree, but it's this first step which is completely taken on blind desire.

"When God created the earth..." Full stop. Why did God exist in the first place? Why do we need him in this fairy tale? Is it because we want someone to look after us? A trust in some big brother that takes care of our sh*t? A way to structure our universe? Our morals? Why do we need him in the first place?

We don't. My dog didn't need me in the first place. Now it does. Many dogs need their master now, and few are free. Most dogs are shaped from their love-bondage, some for the better, but none can deny that they're still being used as "love-toys" for humans. The question now, is whether we believe dogs can have morals and societies of themselves, and if they're capable of loving each other just as much as they love their master.

I think they can.

But is it fair? The dog is being kept in the dark with regards to its position. I'm using it, and while we're both happy with the current relationship, one of us knows the bigger picture, and one of us do not.
Well, you give him/her food, a place to live, and all that, so no, you're not just using it. It a win-win situation, except the dog got you for free and you maybe had to pay $200 for the dog:D.

Good analogy, though.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Well, you give him/her food, a place to live, and all that, so no, you're not just using it.

But can the dog not get these things itself? We are the ones that want, desire, this relationship with it. Not the dog.

I know it's a win-win situation, and I know both the dog and I are perfectly happy with it, but it still boils down to me controlling the dog through this "love-slavery". The dog doesn't care, because it has no choice.

If I were Adam, I'd have eaten from the tree of knowledge as well. I don't think anyone would choose not to. It's so natural of humans to be curious and want more knowledge that God must have foreseen it through and through.

Regarding good and evil which was discussed in the AIM conversation, I don't think we need evil to have good. I think we need evil in order to define good, however. But those definitions are as fluid and slippery as nothing else. Maybe that's why God wanted to enforce his versions of it down on us?

If I were God, I'd have served apple-pies from the tree of knowledge as dinner each and every day to Adam and Eve. To not do so, would mean to have failed as the responsible parent, that God was supposed to be. If he truly loved his creation, he'd have set it free.

:)

On the topic of organized religion, Christianity is no better than the rest.

All I see is the Christian, his dogmas and his church, which makes sure he's following them. Yell "personal relationship" all you want, but people are still upholding a cult surrounding 2000 year old documents and ravings.

"Organized religion is like marching in formation to watch a sunset."

As to the creation stories in Genesis (which were written as allegories after all, despite the misunderstandings of some modern day fundamentalists), many theologians have attempted to interpret them over the centuries.

What was the sin of Adam&Eve? Some say Pride, some say Sex, some say Curiosity, (which is no sin, right?) as you said, etc.

The point is that the story is MULTIVALENT.. have different meanings. Myths are that way in order to provoke thought.

To the Ancients it was just as relevant as a "story" to explain why the world is how it is (why people die, why we don't live with God if he created us and loves us, why men and women aren't equal on earth, why sin exists, etc) as what are relationship with God is.

Some speculate that "if" Man had passed the test, God would have in fact given him/her the full knowledge. But since he was greedy and gullible, he ate the forbidden fruit and only got a partial taste, and thus became mortal, etc.

Anyway, the point is that mankind is "fallen" and through his own fault. Though if God knew what was going to happen beforehand, perhaps this was the "best way" to do it, or he could have just made him perfect.

The whole "free will was given so he could choose to love God freely" isn't in Genesis, but its another theological theory as to the problem of evil and the nature of mankind.

In fact, there are those who say that Free Will is an illusion, and in fact does not exist. Genetics and chaos in fact may explain all of our actions, and we are limited by our environment, the chemicals in our brains, in our food, etc. Now I believe in Free Will, but I also have come to understand that we have varying levels of it.

In this way I think God judges each person according to his abilities. One can't expect the same thing from an able bodied person and a parapalegic deaf/mute right?

Insitutional religion gets a bad rap anymore. Sure, it can be destructive, but it can also be productive. An organization is only as good as its members, after all. The Church doesn't believe it's perfect, it only strives for perfection (like your Holy Grail analogy) often falling flat on its proverbial face, but picking itself back up, dusting itself off, and trying again....

The point is that the story is MULTIVALENT.. have different meanings. Myths are that way in order to provoke thought.

Perfectly said. And they must be considered in a conjunction of different meanings

In fact, there are those who say that Free Will is an illusion, and in fact does not exist. Genetics and chaos in fact may explain all of our actions, and we are limited by our environment, the chemicals in our brains, in our food, etc. Now I believe in Free Will, but I also have come to understand that we have varying levels of it.

Still why do you believe in free will? I haven't figured it out. You're judging free will of a person by it's ability of getting to the higher level of free will. So people are born with equal abilities but some of them in future gain higher level of choosing to love God or not. But somehow the part that chooses to ignore God won't be with him in heaven. Those who gain the lower levels could be considered sinners then cauze they had a chance of having free will to love God but instead of it someone persuaded them to love and they did and so they too go to heaven. But those who consciously chose not to rely on God would not go to heaven either although they very capable. What a puzzle. What have I missed?
I don't believe in free will. It's an illusion of our selfish minds and the only reason why we don't stop our volitionless existence at the very instance is out of our natural selfishness and not because it's sin to commit suicide. It's easy with free will because it's expandable for interpreting.

An organization is only as good as its members, after all. The Church doesn't believe it's perfect, it only strives for perfection (like your Holy Grail analogy) often falling flat on its proverbial face, but picking itself back up, dusting itself off, and trying again....

It strives only to selfishly protect it's future existence. In the end the Church is not involved at all. It's no more than a political structure as has always been through history.

To put it simply, I believe free will exists, because I see examples of it all the time.

For example, people always are doing unexpected things. Even "flipping out" etc.

Then there are examples of people in identical situations who react totally differently. And people have different ideas.

So if nothing else, people have the ability to think differently, and on occasion, react differently than expected.

The opposite of free will would be instinct I suppose, but again, if we had identical programming, wouldn't we react the same in similar circumstances? And yet we don't...

To a certain degree you can predict what populations will do, but not always. With individuals its nearly impossible to predict with any accuracy.

To put it simply, I believe free will exists, because I see examples of it all the time.

Predictions can not prove a theory. You're maybe doing wrong assumption but observe the result that fits your ideas. (That's why you believe in free will?!)We see our sky as a hemisphere with sun moving along it. That's just too simple to be true. So we studied sky and found the universe. Do you neglect universe then? Our world is too complex to rely only on observation.

So if nothing else, people have the ability to think differently, and on occasion, react differently than expected.

Failure of prediction of an occasion lacks only data for computation. Still we can not observe anything perfectly accurate (we're subjective to this world perceiving it only with electrical current interpreted by our brains ). And dealing with occasion means to deal with probability. And all probabilities of decisions whether you took them or not is a multiverse.

The opposite of free will would be instinct I suppose, but again, if we had identical programming, wouldn't we react the same in similar circumstances? And yet we don't...

I think that instinct is a linear computation and our conscious behavior is non-linear and it appears to have some appearence of free will. In fact there are so many things to compute that none of the situations can actually be called identical. That is why we sometimes fail in misjudging "our decisions". Free will gives illusive freedom which is unneed.
Maybe still I'm wrong (because I can't prove yet) but your free will loses even more. Maybe we don't have to put simply , maybe we're here to observe it in complex and so judging with greater accuracy. Don't you think?

If we donґt have free will how come we have made so many unproductive things in our lives? Take music for instance. How come somebody took a treetrunk and beat on it in a rythmic manner? And how come people began dancing to it? How can that possibly come to pass in the first place when it is so out of the instincts that was the primary driver in those times?

And for Colin
How come god doesnґt know anybody? He did create us if you believe in the bible. And he is capable of anything right?
And why did he create us with lusts and drives that works against the 10 commandments?
And what about the countless of innocent newly born babies killed for various reasons. You say they are going to hell just because they never managed to say"Gee, that was dumb, sorry god"

Free will exists, and god is an A$$hat if he exists.

Free will exists, and god is an A$$hat if he exists.

Gee, great argument there. You've won me over already... ; p


Who says babies go to hell? Nobody I know...


Why give people freedom if they are going to abuse it? Just think about that for a second. Doesn't make a whole of sense does it?

Oh I get it, if there's a God, he has to control our every move, like puppets, so that nothing bad ever happens to anybody and we all do 100% what we're supposed to do all the time.

Heh... right.

As to Free Will, no, I don't KNOW it exists, but I have evidence it exists. The evidence is enough to convince me. Let's hear your side of the argument that it does not?

Making predictions based on a theory and seeing those outcomes occur is actually a good way to test it (part of the scientific method, not the only part, but an important part).

Our actions might be so complex and affected by things so far away that they give the appearance of Free Will but we are in fact automatons. However, we can't just assume this can we?

I assume you're saying that because an infinite number of universes exist (multiverse) in which all possible things that can occur have occured/are occuring, we don't have Free Will.

There are several problems with this assumption. First off, it implies that we are somehow connected to our other "selves" (ie: I HAVE to do this, because XYZ "me" did THAT other thing, and so I'm doing the opposite). Those other people are not ME, for lack of a better term, they are simply "clones" since they exist outside our universe, and thus I'm an individual. If my clones do something, that doesn't stop me from making my own decisions.

The other thing is, wouldn't it all fall flat on its face...? Woudn't the other "me's" have to do EVERYTHING the opposite? If we are talking the other me is gay, and the other me is a dictator, and the other me killed himself, and the other me is a woman, etc etc. and just little differences like that, it doesn't quite add up.

Having a multiverse doesn't prove that my every action is pre-determined and I can't change it.

Also, using Occam's Razor, one attempts to apply the simplest solution to the problem that meets all of the criteria (solves the equation). Having an infinite number of universes might be just as "implausible" as having an omnipotent God controlling everything, but the point is, it's an unnecessary assumption when it comes to whether will is free or not. Does that make sense?


If you think about what you're doing right now, at this very second... you pretty much have to assume that you do have Free Will, even if in reality you don't. You operate on the principle that you do. So perhaps Free Will doesn't exist, but we are all programmed to think we do (though, many people throughout the ages have believed in predestination and Fate)... that still doesn't make much sense.

It's like believing we're just brains in jars, living in the matrix, when all our senses and environment is telling us "this is real."

Making predictions based on a theory and seeing those outcomes occur is actually a good way to test it (part of the scientific method, not the only part, but an important part).

Absolutely right. But making predictions on a non-proven theory trying to prove it that way is futile

Having a multiverse doesn't prove that my every action is pre-determined and I can't change it.

It does exactly this thing but that's not a slavery, it's freedom of knowing these things. Keep reading please...

It's like believing we're just brains in jars, living in the matrix, when all our senses and environment is telling us "this is real."

What did Morpheus tryed to do then? He tryed to tell the truth. You are to believe whatever you want but I still can try to convince you. I guess we're both pointing to one thing in the end: that we can't define free will completely. That's where very interesting thing appears. Keep on reading...

There are several problems with this assumption. First off, it implies that we are somehow connected to our other "selves" (ie: I HAVE to do this, because XYZ "me" did THAT other thing, and so I'm doing the opposite). Those other people are not ME, for lack of a better term, they are simply "clones" since they exist outside our universe, and thus I'm an individual. If my clones do something, that doesn't stop me from making my own decisions.

The other thing is, wouldn't it all fall flat on its face...? Woudn't the other "me's" have to do EVERYTHING the opposite? If we are talking the other me is gay, and the other me is a dictator, and the other me killed himself, and the other me is a woman, etc etc. and just little differences like that, it doesn't quite add up.

Free will is more about choosing between decisions than "making decisions" (I'll refer to it as making a complex some possible decisions in your head). We're surely connected to our other selves. It's our mechanism of "decision making". Consciousness is a multiversal thing and life is unique. Life forms wonderful structure in our universe but it forms even more fascinating structure in multiverse. And difference of our methods is that I was trying to assume multiverse in my definitions in the first place and you took it out of your definitions and is what I'm not agreed with.
Imagine every your clone from multiverse (taken from universes where you exist) is standing in one line. It's a long line. And everyone 's choosing a decision on a definite subject and accomplishes so we see what he has decided. Some of them do opposite decision to the others. Others just do similar decisions or identical. But none actually is without decision. That's your perfect situation (free will exists). But it lacks connection between all clones and yourself.
When this connection is given through quantum collapse in microtubule of every cell in our bodies they all choose decisions in according to the strengh of their connection to each other perceiving more freely those decisions that are chosen more commonly than others (perhaps). You actually choose something but there's always one clone who chose something else. So in multiverse all clones choose all possible variations of decisions of subject you're choosing about that's why free will is imposible. Decisions are made in your head, they're not mattered until you choose one. And in multiverse you choose everything.
But yet you convinced me of something about our decision making mechanism. But that is not free will. Maybe we should invent a new conception?
As long as this line (of clones) is finite it all loses its arguments and you're right then (free will exists) because how can finite number of clones choose from infinite number of variations (there would be always decisions not taken in to reckoning).

Also, using Occam's Razor, one attempts to apply the simplest solution to the problem that meets all of the criteria (solves the equation). Having an infinite number of universes might be just as "implausible" as having an omnipotent God controlling everything, but the point is, it's an unnecessary assumption when it comes to whether will is free or not. Does that make sense?

Perfect sense now, and thank you for that. And still isn't my solution much more simple than God? When dealing with such abstractions as infinity we should always consider that we think of it and imagine it so it exists in our reality through the same electric impulse in our heads (same with perfect circle , IT EXISTS). My solution explains things and even makes some predictions. While God is highly unpredictable.

Absolutely right. But making predictions on a non-proven theory trying to prove it that way is futile


Something that is true but doesn't need to be proven.... is not scientific.




It does exactly this thing but that's not a slavery, it's freedom of knowing these things. Keep reading please...


Then explain to me how the existence of a multiverse (as opposed to a universe) proves or disproves the existence of Free Will. I'm confused as to how you think one follows from the other... (if you think that, that is).


What did Morpheus tryed to do then? He tryed to tell the truth.


The Matrix is a movie. A work of fiction. In truth, there are people who believe that the world we live in is illusionary (not quite like how it is portrayed in the movie of course). But that's not at issue here. I was merely using it as an example of how you COULD deny all evidence in the world (literally) in favor of a belief in something wholly other. The point is that you are free to do this, but its certainly not scientific. It's a faith statement...

If you could step outside the matrix and obtain proof (for example... a captured robot body, gel samples from the cacoons, photographic evidence of the fields, etc) then it would be based on actual evidence, not faith.


You are to believe whatever you want but I still can try to convince you.

Of course.


I guess we're both pointing to one thing in the end: that we can't define free will completely.

We can try. Free Will is the ability to make decisions based on one's own whim, rather than being forced by some other influence (such as instinct, God, chemicals in the brain, etc). Evidence of this could be obtained a number of ways... brain studies, behavioral studies, historical analysis, sociological studies, etc.



Free will is more about choosing between decisions than "making decisions" (I'll refer to it as making a complex some possible decisions in your head).

I'm listening....


We're surely connected to our other selves.

Unproven... but I'm listening....


It's our mechanism of "decision making". Consciousness is a multiversal thing and life is unique. Life forms wonderful structure in our universe but it forms even more fascinating structure in multiverse. And difference of our methods is that I was trying to assume multiverse in my definitions in the first place and you took it out of your definitions and is what I'm not agreed with.

So far, we have convincing evidence that our universe exists. The next step would be to provide evidence of a multiverse. So far... (and here's where you could point me to any new theories that have cropped up recently) the multiverse concept is a speculative concept, not based on any observed phenomena. What evidence would one look for to provide support for the idea that other universes exist (much less an infinite number of them)?

If it cannot be proven (as a skeptic), why should we assume that this is the case?

Why not assume there are 2 universes, or 5,272 (or 127? as there were in "The One"), rather than an infinite number? Where there an infinite number of Big Bangs as well?


Imagine every your clone from multiverse (taken from universes where you exist) is standing in one line. It's a long line. And everyone 's choosing a decision on a definite subject and accomplishes so we see what he has decided. Some of them do opposite decision to the others. Others just do similar decisions or identical. But none actually is without decision. That's your perfect situation (free will exists). But it lacks connection between all clones and yourself.
When this connection is given through quantum collapse in microtubule of every cell in our bodies they all choose decisions in according to the strengh of their connection to each other perceiving more freely those decisions that are chosen more commonly than others (perhaps). You actually choose something but there's always one clone who chose something else.

Let's say that's true. Each clone makes a decision in isolation. He doesn't make his decision with knowledge of the others (I sense no "other selves" of myself doing things, which influence my decision to make a certain decision.... do you?), and so his decision is made apart from (and free from) the others. He doesn't HAVE to do one thing because his 135th self made an opposite decision. Since each self is an independent entity, his decisions are his own, regardless of how many clones of himself there are in the multiverse.

So the concept of multiverse, again, doesn't alone prove that free will doesn't exist. If in fact you concieve of a multiverse as being a universe for every possible choice (which seems like a needless multiplication of terms to prove fate) then perhaps Free Will is merely an illusion. Again though, if I have no knowledge of the other selves and make decisions based on my own whims, am I not controlling the other selves? I can conciously change my mind at any time... am I the "master universe" with these other universes as my slaves?

It's interesting to think and speculate about, but I don't see it as something that I seriously believe applies to our reality.


So in multiverse all clones choose all possible variations of decisions of subject you're choosing about that's why free will is imposible. Decisions are made in your head, they're not mattered until you choose one. And in multiverse you choose everything.

There's the problem. It implies that the infinite number of selves are in fact ME. When I'm saying they're clones. They exist outside our universe, and so they are each independent entities.


But yet you convinced me of something about our decision making mechanism. But that is not free will. Maybe we should invent a new conception?

I put up what I thought Free Will was. Let's hear your definition...


As long as this line (of clones) is finite it all loses its arguments and you're right then (free will exists) because how can finite number of clones choose from infinite number of variations (there would be always decisions not taken in to reckoning).


In theory though, each clone has an infinite number of possibilites to choose from (each one may not know about all of them of course, putting limits on his "will" to choose them), and so every choice he makes is his own. If in fact each clone can ONLY choose that which is other selves did not choose, or what was left, then perhaps his will is in fact not Free.


Perfect sense now, and thank you for that. And still isn't my solution much more simple than God?

Not necessarily. They are perhaps equivalent (if God is infinite as well). Meaning the multiverse "theory" is little more than religious faith. That's fine. But if you're arguing religions its like saying Buddha is more plausible than Jesus, or Krishna is more plausible than Zeus. It's totally out of the realm of scientific inquiry.

On the one hand you have one entity (God) that is infinite (depending on how powerful you think God is) on the other you have an infinite number of finite entities.

Now some people think that the universe itself is infinite, but you seem to be saying that there are an infinite number of finite universes. Right?

Either way, you're using extra terms to explain one entity (the universe) assuming it is finite.

The multiverse, or God, or both might in fact be THE CASE in reality, but that isn't proven from science. It's faith.


When dealing with such abstractions as infinity we should always consider that we think of it and imagine it so it exists in our reality through the same electric impulse in our heads (same with perfect circle , IT EXISTS). My solution explains things and even makes some predictions. While God is highly unpredictable.


What predictions does it make? You never established this. How do we detect the other universes or other selves? How do we establish that our decisions are based on what THEY DO and not what we ourselves decide to do?

If he can't prove a multiverse, and we can't prove God, then they are both equally unscientific theories.... and belong to the realm of philosophical speculation and religious faith.

Let me reiterate that there is nothing wrong with religious faith in and of itself, just that it is usually outside the realm of science and not provable one way or the other, thus it takes faith to accept it as reality.

Sometimes there is overlap, but that's pretty much how it is. Apples and oranges.

o Kurgan The Headhunter from the test tube of world's vanity and fear...

And again about free will. That's my last note about it so don't be too bored about having a continious debate. I think it was something wrong with that I haven't mentioned from the beginning

Let's imagine how we make decisions. For example, we've Kyle Katarn who's put to the question: "Will you join the Dark Side now? Answer immidiately". He's in multiverse which you can perceive in our reality through light interference phenomena (read Deutch). And he's connected to every himself in every universe he exists and put to this question. They are not isolated "clones" but related to each other. So Kyle stands and thinks. 3 ideas come in to his head from different selves due to their mutual connection by quantum collapse in microtubule (read Penrose or Parallel Universes Thread). The strength of his connection is not big and to his mind's computation and data recieved from others but he can distinguish 3 answers to this question:
1. Yeah, sure why not, I'll be Sith, That's cool
2. No I wanna stay blue. I'm gonna be a Jedi
3. S**t the hell I'm so confused, I can't think of anything. Life sucks, I commit suicide

And now magic comes...

Your definition of free will: If Kyle chooses any answer he shows his free will. He can't choose not to answer because he doesn't have this answer in his mind. Everyone else chooses independently which is the essence of free will. He also chooses in isolation

My old definition: He's not isolated. Kyle cannot choose between answers multiversally because all 3 answers have been chosen any way either by him or by others. In fact he can not choose any answer he's not to choose. Because as soon as there's more than one possible answer multiverse splits into more universes so covering the gap. In that manner of thinking we can trully call free will a special case of fate. Free will is excluded not because Kyle choooses in isolation (so he thinks) but because all 3 answers (all variation of answers on this question) are chosen in multiverse.This is what I don't like. That fate is multiversal law. But it's possible to pass it.
I tryed to think how can we convert fate. And then... Blessing...hahaha

My new definition (It's not actually mine I remembered Deutch but some thought still belong to me):

I was wrong with which you got intuitively perhaps. First I'll establish connection between answers so that every answer was discribing the whole variation of answers. There would be 9 (I guess). For example one of them is: "Yeah that's cool, I wanna be Sith because Jedi are so blue and I'm not that confused to commit suicide". What I get wrong was that free will is not the capacity of choosing randomly. It is more a capacity of choosing individually. They are very different things. The only thing that you made wrong then (as I'm strongly convinced in existence of multiverse) is looking at those clones in isolation (assuming multiverse simultaneusly with not doing so). I say there's unequal connection between Kyles. And my long answer then means: that "I wanna be Sith" answer is more commonly CHOSEN, that those that are not confused to commit suicide outnumber those Kyles that are ready for it and that he's opinion about Jedi being blue is more widly repeated by his clones.

So there's place for both multiverse and free will but not fate. Maybe some scientists were thinking about the same. I wonder then if there are here wrong assumptions made. I guess all of this is crap after all.

Of course it's far from for proof (widly spoken at least for you it's not a proof at all) but how can we tell of anything in quantum mechanics to be implicitly proven if no accuracy available there. How can we involve God here when there's no such thing as accuracy with him and of course no such thing as proof. (I haven't seen any explanation)

If in fact each clone can ONLY choose that which is other selves did not choose, or what was left, then perhaps his will is in fact not Free.

No,no... don't say to me that after you crashed my previous conception you finally believed it. Unbelievable but you're wrong in this. Clone chooses the mostly common answer as it gains greater attention by others (meaning that connection is stronger there) but not what others did not choose.

The multiverse, or God, or both might in fact be THE CASE in reality, but that isn't proven from science. It's faith.

General Relativity has unsolved equations but we still take it as the ultimate theory for predicting star movement. And it predicts with very great accuracy. Or you call faith only what's inobvious?
I say only that multiverse is much more rational, explanious and complete than religious abstraction and I'm not agreed with considering something faith till it's proven scientifically and then just stop doing so and start keeping faith in something else. I believe in God but not the one who's to be perceived with blind faith only.
Some say that faith and scientific method are actually 2 coners of one line and they are compatible with each other. I'm not sure about that (still yet perhaps)

So essentially what you're saying is that we THINK we have free will, but in reality our decisions are based on what our other "selves" are thinking.

Yet, for all intents and purposes we have every indication that we have free will, we just don't, in reality.

The first step in convincing me would be to show me how we know that multiple universes exist, and that they work in the manner you describe... it's a two part answer.

Logically though, I don't see the beneift in assuming an infinite number of universes in order to justify the one we live in, that we know exists.

If we put aside religious faith for a second, why should the existence of a multiverse be more reasonable than assuming just one universe? Doesn't this needlessly multiple terms?

I'm with Kurgan here.

Until I'm shown why I should even bother accepting multiverse as fact, then there's no reason for me to discuss it here.

It's an interesting theory for sure, but I still see no proof of all the "selves" etc.

to Kurgan.

No,no,no... We have free will because we don't choose randomly or by the council of our clones, we choose idividually with their advice only. (we hear more clearly the answer of those clones that outnumber). And we also do it sub-consciously maybe that's why you can not understand how it is possible.
First if you don't trust me here try to read Deutch's Fabric of Reality (old but with spice). He says about observing other universes through light interference on micro-level (that there are about trillions per a photon inaccurately so maybe they are not that infinite after all). More he points there that life is unique (that gene has working structure through all universes and some- part-of-some-looking-like-chain-aminoacids-double-helix is not ) and that time travel is possible (maybe unprobable)
I only put infinite in calculation for abstraction. It's an open question. It's like a comparison with your infinite christian God.
You might say then that I refer to a man like it was a God in science and that Einstein too made mistakes.
And if we put away religion we find that the best explanation we have about our reality stucture is multiverse theory. Because it explains things better than our old classical universe theory or any religion.
Of course it doesn't discribe for what reason. So I let religion live to describe it.

to C'jais.

I can name here thousands of things classical universe can not explain in any sense but that's not the matter of whether it's proven or not. For me it's light as day and proven. You see evidence from different angle and maybe somehow you have limited yourself in the borders of classical universe because you think it's 101% proven or because the number of scientists describing classical universe in history outnumber those that describe multiverse (which first appeared in 20's) (or maybe simply those clones of you in multiverse who agree with universe outnumber those who believe in multiverse, still you have free will)
I also see deep connection which multiverse astablishes between different sciences: physics, biology, philosophy, epistemology etc. and which universe gives us not
Maybe you're skeptic to something new

I would be open to the possibility of a multiverse, but I'd need some pretty convincing evidence, let's put it that way.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Notice I haven't tried to "prove" that an infinite, omnipotent God exists. I have even admitted that it requires faith to make the assumption that such a being in fact exists, since we have no direct proof (other than philosophical proof, which is always debatable).

I am not familiar with this Deutch person. What is he/she...? Astro-physicist? Mathematician? Philosopher? Sounds interesting anyway.

To conclude, I'd say that given the existence of a multiverse (even an infinite one), that still doesn't provide the logical leap that free will and/or God does not exist.

Originally posted by Homuncul
I also see deep connection which multiverse astablishes between different sciences: physics, biology, philosophy, epistemology etc. and which universe gives us not
Maybe you're skeptic to something new

Nope, I'm skeptic because I don't understand it yet ;)

I don't intend to rag on you, but the way you present the multiverse theory makes it seem very confusing for us not in the know. You're very familiar with it, and take it for granted, and I think this is what's keeping you from explaining it thoroughly.

Maybe it's just me being an ignorant twit, but I think most people in here can't see the logical step from having simultaneously existing clones, to not having free will. Or did I get it completely wrong? :confused:

Don't get me wrong, I don't abject to your theory simply becuase I don't know it, but you must understand that most people used to the simple universe theory can't quite grasp the philosophical monster of multiverse.

Well, i'm Muslim.

And i think taht science and religion can mix. The way it says the earth was made in the Koran very much resembles the big bang theory. Islam supports the notion of furthering science to know more aobut the world around you, etc.

The second issue im going to talk about is God. C'jais, you dont believe in God, right? im assuming that you dont, corrrect me if im wrong. well, does that make you an immoral person? well ,no. I tihnk peopel beleive in God through pure faith. i do, i think that scientific proof would be great, but since there isnt any, i ahve to just have faith that there is one. taht's all i have about taht.

Next, organized religion. There are COUNTLESS religions out there. is there a right one? well, not really. Islam believes that christians, jews, and muslims are right in their own way. so, just because one doesn't follow a certain religion, it doesn't mean they're going to end up in hell.

I'm just trying to say that sometimes there isn't a true explanation for religion, you just have to have faith. Also, you dont have to believe a certain religion or denomination to go to heaven eitehr.

Kurgan, C'jais you both are absolutely right. I take many things for granted. Furthermore it took me months of reading to structure all "yes" and "no" about these theories. And I can not convince you till you make some step towards it yourselves. I read Hawking, Deutch, Tipler(a bit), Mendel, Popper, Darwin, Penrose, Turing and others. Among them (although they're all greatest of greatest) I found David Deutch's view to be the most convincing as he never invented anything, he took the best we've got and astablished all-unifying relationship between it which from my point of view can not be ignored. It's like we had everything scattered to pieces till this moment shading the picture allowing no clear view. Now I think we have a first glimpse of it. It's not full it's just a beginning. But it gives something clear that we can use to recreate the full image. And it astonishes me with its fullness.
But I can not give you all "yes" and "no", just can try to direct you there. It's a great opportunity. I'm not a scientist and I'll never be. All I'm good for is to observe and understand what others accomplished. These are my limits. Those others are genius people... Funny thing I'd like to talk about it...
There genius people. Ones that can find a way from A to C without knowing B. It's a genetic mutation. It's a known fact that many genius people had some pathologies from birth (like Hawking for example... bless him, no offense). They all have great mind capacity sometimes they got mad about or put themselves into extreme (it's their gift and their curse I think)
There also is another type of geniusity. One's who make it with great study and practice. They get these astounding results because of their genius industry. The only chance for me to be able to understand and explain it to you is to become the same level they are either of genetic geniusity (which I know I have not) or by genius hard-working. In the end it all depends on me. And I know that I'm lazy donut and it's always exponencially hard. You get to some level with some affort, you'll get to higher level with 10 times an affort, to get to even higher level you need 100 times an affort. You can count further on. And geneticly-genius you can become in 20 while industry-genius you'll become in 60.
I have a glimpse of what I speak about. I practice aikido which is a martial art of great efficiency and wisdom(I guess). I'm a shodan (have a black belt). I see many people there who lost their ability to practice efficiently which is possible only with your open-minded hard work or with talent (if both we get some human God like Aikido founder O'Sensei Morihei Ueshiba). I see some talents there. One aikidoka there understands any movement correctly intuitively which is a great gift assuming his height of 6 feet 2 inches (I have the same). Aikido gives much better efficiency with short people giving them natural movements because they stand better on the ground. Elephants have always problems there. I only gain success through hard work watching with some envy on these talents. There are other talents because they began practicing from their birth. It's like boxing, you're much better when you have school (intuitive culture of movement). It's not that important in any martial arts but it gives big benefits when you have it from the beginning. And what really pisses me off is when I see a talented person doing some stupid way in aikido (not understanding principles) or just too lazy to use his talents.

In the end I'd like to postualte one thing: I see NO reason why ANY normal person can't understand fully this monstrous multiverse. It's only a matter of good explanation. That's it.

P.S. David Deutch is quantum physicist. I started multiverse by chance reading his "Fabric of Reality" 1997. It's a classic everyone should know.

Now I'm not a physics major, but I did a little searching on a the net and now I know who this guy is you're talking about. He's the premier champion of this multiverse theory (a variation on the "many worlds" concept of space/time).

However, the impression I got was that this was a controversial theory on the fringes of science (and not without its variant expressions).

It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of it in the next few decades.

I saw the book you mentioned on amazon. Here are a few misc sites I found talking about the subject:

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci332247,00.html)

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~bearoso/theories.html)

http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/fringe-watcher.html)

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/31/1041196640478.html)

http://www.discover.com/nov_00/featlife.html)

Deutsch's own page:

http://www.qubit.org/people/david/David.html)

Let's not forget that even geniuses can make mistakes. ; )

In the end I'd like to postualte one thing: I see NO reason why ANY normal person can't understand fully this monstrous multiverse. It's only a matter of good explanation. That's it.

I would contend that the universe is too vast and complex a system for any one human mind to comprehend at once, much less an infinitely large and complex multiverse. But that's just my feeling. ; )

As to the multiverse "theory" itself, one would have to understand the equations and science behind it in order to make sense of it. For laymen, all we can really do is hope that the scientific community is doing their research, and see how it turns out.

Accepting this on philosophical terms is a whole 'nother story, which is what I think you're talking about (correct me if I'm wrong).

Thanks for the book references and links, Homuncul and Kurgan.

I'll get around to reading them when I have the time.

Kurgan:
As to the multiverse "theory" itself, one would have to understand the equations and science behind it in order to make sense of it. For laymen, all we can really do is hope that the scientific community is doing their research, and see how it turns out.
Accepting this on philosophical terms is a whole 'nother story, which is what I think you're talking about (correct me if I'm wrong).

The equations and science behind it is not the worst thing. On the contrary the equations are written with as much simplicity as possible even I understood without problems. The different problem is getting to their level of understanding and not get mixed up in something positive or instrumental or something. It's like a story about the inability of rabbit to outrun a turtle. So it's like running for horizon. This story contains logical error. In such a deep knowledge as quantum mechanics it's inevitable and hardly recognizable.
As for the web stuff, you did a great job but most interesting of it is on Deutsch's page.

P.S.
And I'm really touched that I find people here who above all the unbreakability of their opinions find strength in their hearts to turn their world upside down if only for a moment and look at it from a different loop. That's an adequate approach which I'm really honored to see here. It gives me hope. To be open-minded from that point of view means a lot more than it takes commonly (for example: to break down the religion and establish scientific one or something like that), it means that upon all rationalism of science lies a pearl of faith (I'd say a faith in future knowledge) and those who keep this faith conditionally (scientists and we here) and those who keep it unconditionally (christians or whatever) could both be at least opened to realization of each others underlying relationship. Maybe scientific minds need to be more tolerable and allow a bit of faith. Maybe christians (or others) need to stop being stubborn and allow their minds to except logical imagination as the ultimate device (but not the only) for explaining the world they live in.

Christianity is wrong due to what I have dubbed the Omnipotence Paradox:

To be omnipotent one must also be omniscient.

To be omniscient is to know the future (and a good heckuvalot of other things).

Yet to know the future, you assume that there is only one future.

Therefore the number of actions God can take is limited to one.

But omnipotence means (amongst other things) that you can do anything.

Therefore omnipotence is impossible.

Christianity claims that God is omnipotent.

Therefore Christianity is wrong.

q.e.d.

Templar you must be careful in calling anyone wrong, especially using an argument that is not definitive in any direction. The "Omnipotence Paradox" is a common theological and philisophical problem many have, and it has been countered very well by many theologians.

Calling someone or something, especially on a sensitive subject such as religion, wrong only causes strife and unfortunately garners you no respect among those of us who atleast admit that we *may* be wrong in our respective views.

If you are right with your apparent paradox why on Earth does monotheistic religion exist at all? I believe it is because your paradox is only a theory and one that can be very well argued against, causing a reasonable doubt in your theory, which makes it indefinitive and therefore, just a theory. Not right or wrong.

I will not recycle old theologians responses, you can find them yourself. Bed time :)

Originally posted by BrodieCadden
If you are right with your apparent paradox why on Earth does monotheistic religion exist at all?

Because people aren't rational.

I believe it is because your paradox is only a theory and one that can be very well argued against, causing a reasonable doubt in your theory, which makes it indefinitive and therefore, just a theory. Not right or wrong.

Desist this misuse of the word 'theory'. The word that you are looking for is 'hypothesis'.

As a note on the side, I do accept that I can be wrong. And I frequently am. And what's more I tend to admit it. But only when presented with proof.

Christianity is wrong due to what I have dubbed the Omnipotence Paradox:
To be omnipotent one must also be omniscient.
To be omniscient is to know the future (and a good heckuvalot of other things).
Yet to know the future, you assume that there is only one future.
Therefore the number of actions God can take is limited to one.
But omnipotence means (amongst other things) that you can do anything.
Therefore omnipotence is impossible.
Christianity claims that God is omnipotent.
Therefore Christianity is wrong.
q.e.d.

ShadowT you're right and I've got and there's another similar thing to what you say, I think it's even more precise:
I.
God's omnipotent and infinite
He exists within our time borders and doesn't know the future
Therefore he's limited and not omnipotent (still some can guess that he chooses to be limited due to his omnipotency, but I've never figured it out of the bible in any way)

II.
God's omnipotent and infinite
God's perceives time completely in all directions past and future
Ther's no nead to worry about soul's salvation cauze god had already decide about every soul, also fate is in town and no free will available (if not multiverse considered)

---------------------------

Therefore biblical god is something too simple to be an ultimate cause for our reality

Originally posted by Homuncul
(if not multiverse considered)

And with the 'multiverse' interpretation, God would be no more than an immesurably powerful computer. Doesn't sound very divine to me.

Originally posted by Homuncul
Therefore biblical god is something too simple to be an ultimate cause for our reality

q.e.d. :D