it's funny how "brain in a vat" is some sort of absurd thing according to Sye ....when that is exactly his position ....soul in a vat/or body/or universe...and Matt's position is I don't have a reason to believe this claim and I can't disprove it just like some claimed gods
I absolutely love when He says god isn't all loving and suggests that the all loving god is an atheist straw man. So is he really saying that the idea of an all loving god was first put forth by atheists? Crazy.
Two clips from the Matt Dillihunty-Sye Ten Buggerencats debate and the DogmaDebate after show. First, Smalley asks Sye about how Newton had one of those "god has reveled it to me in a way that I know it to be true", but it disagreed with Sye's revelation. Sye says when christians with scripture-based revealed truth have disagreements, they will go to bible study and research. ???? In the second clip, Matt asks essentially the same question, gets basically the same answer, except notice, there at the end, how Sye will happily point out how they're wrong.
I haven't seen anyone discussing this. Maybe I'm missing something, but that sure seems to make laughable any claim of 'god revealing/ed truth' [yes, I understand it's laughable on it's face, but this is within their warped world view]. It's even sweeter that Sye shows us how he assumes his version of revelation is of course the true truth. Breathtakinginanity, it doesn't get any better than this. I'm sure Newton would have been really impressed with Sye's intellect.
scott terry? is this the same scott terry that would gladly rape babies if god commanded him to?
Fuckin' A... I really like that David Smalley guy. Well, done.
"That doesn't make sense."
Exactly. But that what predestination is, and what Sye believes to be the human condition.
Just to clarify Scott, before you jump up and down about me mentioning "truth", I was speaking of the concept of "truth" that even you would have agree could be defined as "a set of facts that agree with reality" (not some sort of ultimate, unchangable, eternal, etc., etc. which can't be justify without accepting your god - red herring!)
truth - a set of facts that agree with reality
facts - a something known by actual experience or observation
experience - practical contact with and observation of an events
observation – the action or process of closely monitoring something
reality - the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
actually - as opposed virtually or conceptually
ignorance - lack of facts or information.
information - facts provided or learned about something or someone.
If you have trouble with me using this concept of "truth" I seriously don't know how you get through life.
The science is showing that our bodies are already starting to perform an action before we are consciously aware of it, everything else is a post hoc justification based on existing biases built off previous experience (like a re-enfored expectation that something should be the case).
No, but they do have a "will" to do something (a deliberate or fixed desire or intention) just like the comic book character.
If natural laws are consistent and there is no supernatural intervention then they are determined to act a certain way because of temporally prior causes (learnt behaviour and many other stimulus from the environment and hormones releasd into the blood).
If God intervenes in natural law then their will in not free either. It is guided by God.
If you can "prove" that there is some sufficient uncaused cause that gives you free will, then you win but if it's God then there is still no "free will". You can try for the "sole of the gaps" but its a very small platform to stand on.
Have a look into what science can tell us about how the mind works (neuroscience) and it will become evident if you look with an open mind. I can't make you look but if you don't try then you are choosing ignorance over truth.
Someone freely wills to do something, when they do what they want, right?
I don't see how God foreordaining what a person wills can deny that the person wills what he wants. This is suggested, but never proven.
Also, has the debate been posted anywhere yet?
"Are you suggesting that any given character in the "comic book" illustration, would have wanted to do other than what he, in fact, did? I don't see how that follows."
You are talking about "will", not "free will". We all have a "will" to act a certin way but "free will" isn't possible in the framework of predestination nor is it possible in the naturalistic determinism framework even though we have the illusion of it.
@ Blue Print,
That doesn't make sense.
Are you suggesting that any given character in the "comic book" illustration, would have wanted to do other than what he, in fact, did? I don't see how that follows.
"god hates some" hmm more like god hates all ...being born sinful and worthless and only through buying the illness they can sell u the fake cure
Beavis and Butt-head LIVE
Predestination is the belief that our lives are like charecters in a comic book, that all future panels are already printed.
That being the case, to say you can choose differently than what the next panels show you've chosen, logically contradict the belief that future panels are already printed (predestination).
Since BluePrint is the one suggesting an inconsistency between two propositions, I'd like to operate on his analysis. If it turns out that he can define "foreordain" (and other relevant terms) in such a way that there does (on his definition) turn out to be a logical contradiction, we'd have to investigate whether his stipulations are relevant to Sye's position.
My position is logically irrelevant in all of that.
Scott: what do you mean by foreordain? How do you define "ordain"?
You need to demonstrate how these two propositions are logically contradictory:
1. We "freely will" when we do what we want (within acceptable bounds).
2. God foreordains what we will want to do.
It's not immediately obvious how these two propositions are contradictory. You seem to strongly believe they are. Please explain how they're contradictory.
Sye believes in predestination, as in: believes thoughts and actions are "set in stone" from before a person is born. That's not emotions (or includes them, but irrelevant).
So if your actions are already part of my past, the choice you feel/think/believe you have is a false one, because in my experience you've already chosen. Unless we're in different universes, try as you might, events will conspire against you choosing differently than what I've already experienced you choosing.