Reply personal responsibility is a crock: here is why

Post Reply New Topic

The point to everything I said is that I can pull crap out of my ass as well and my crap is actually derived from a mathematician's concepts. Your crap is arbitrary and comes from left field.

1. How is it logically possible for something to not have a cause? You're making a claim yet not explaining how to logically get to that claim?



Why not? What if I have faith and believe it is self evident that one be eternal and have a beginning? Do you see the problem? This is a contradiction. I have to be able to coherently explain how this is so? Otherwise, I simply can believe the flying spaghetti monster is our creator.



I have faith that there are infinitely many. Do you see the problem? How do I derive this justification? How do I justify my faith? Where do I derive this from? How do I know I'm not deceiving myself? Same thing with you. How do you get that an entity can be eternal exactly? How is that logically possible?

And, by your logic why can't I have faith that existence came from nothing?



Yes, we got a better view of these things. But, scientists used instruments and mathematical calculations to do so. We have pictures of the earth and other planets now. All of this showed how the earth is not a flat circle but that's the difference between you and them. You're not demonstrating in the slightest how it is possible for something to be eternal and have no beginning at all? When you can't justify like the scientists did then my version of faith is just as good as your version. I can pull things out of my ass just like you can and use Godel's incompleteness theorems to make it sort of make sense.



Of course this is true!



But that assumes

1. There is a creator

2. This creator is eternal

3. This creator is the same God as in the Bible.

4. It is possible for something to be eternal.

5. all of these characteristics of the creator are stated by the creator and not by man himself. Man has a tendency to either over exaggerate or under exaggerate things.

6. man understands the bible properly

7. the bible and not anything else like the Koran is the true word of god

8. and the creator is honest and truthful with his dealings with his creation and has his creation's best interest at heart

As for me. I do believe in my heart there is a God and my dead mother is in heaven and she's one of the chief librarians there of heaven's great library. I have no evidence for this or proof of this and I don't need any. It gives me great comfort and that's all I need. You on the other hand are trying to put this in the realm of logic, reason and science when it most certainly not.

And, I believe he found a way for me to work in China.

And, that right here is another reason I don't believe anything you say. You, like other creation scientists are trying to use pseudo reasoning to prove something that really can't be proven or disproven.

And, I don't accept that everything in the Bible was written by God but inspired by God which means man wrote it. I don't accept that the every jot in there is the absolute word of God but a lot of it is by man. And, is man right all the time or is man imperfect? Can man misinterpret things? Yes, we can.

Not arbitrary at all. You are simply committed to the assumption that it is. That’s a bias problem.


There is no contradiction. Anything that is eternal by definition cannot have a beginning. The universe is finite. At some point it BEGAN. Faith has nothing to do with that.


God has revealed Himself to us, so there is no excuse for believing otherwise. There’s no need to justify anything. Either you believe in what you know is real or you don’t. Actually...”believe” isn’t really the right word because atheists claim not to believe when God has revealed Himself to them same as anyone else. It’s really more about accepting the reality of God and the work of Jesus on the cross. THAT part is faith. The idea that eternal God has no beginning is not faith but rather a defining attribute. Being infinitely many is too complicated. Ancient Greek religion faced the same problem. The simplest answer is one God. A single, infinite God can logically fulfill the purpose of many, plus it takes the conflict out of the notion that gods can be divided against themselves. Greek religion held that gods were often in disagreement on virtue, men couldn’t help but offend one god by pleasing another, and men were merely the playthings of gods with absolutely no control over their lives or fates. Understanding that man is responsible for the presence of evil in the world puts control over it squarely in our hands, not some fickle whim of a deity playing you against another deity. To defeat a god requires humans to rise above themselves INDIVIDUALLY, and the idea that a god could be defeated diminishes the power or influence that god has. It certainly destroys any internal consistency and doesn’t solve the problem of why gods seem to favor some over others, and the idea that humans CAN overcome gods isn’t blasphemous doesn’t help the case. A single God who reveals Himself to us and gives us a path to righteousness and salvation is much simpler. It’s internally consistent and best reflects reality...that people can make choices in life, rise above circumstances and themselves, be the heroes of their own stories.

Besides all that, how would you know the difference between the presence of infinite gods and God’s omnipresence?

Deceiving yourself...well, that’s the real question, isn’t it? The presence of sin in your life affects your mind. Your perspective is nothing more than chemical reactions in your brain. You cannot know that you can trust your senses, and your mind is affected by sin nature. You cannot perceive objective reality, only a distorted view of it. Once you accept anything you think you know about reality, you are borrowing part of God’s revelation about that reality. Atheists get a lot right about the world around them, but they cannot escape the terrible fact that they cannot make absolute statements about their world. They get things right “accidentally” because they are borrowing knowledge revealed to them by God. Their conclusions happen to be the right ones, but they are not LOGICAL conclusions. Only through faith and the renewal of the mind are you able to reach logical conclusions. The first step is believing that God won’t deceive you, and the influence of sin on the mind is great enough that many people would rather cling to their delusions than accept that there is a reality beyond themselves. It’s best to have faith. It’s enduring the pain of giving in to faith that people struggle with.



Pretty much, yep.


Not true. It all depends. To accept God requires more than logic because logic without God doesn’t exist. I mean...yes, the mind is logical because reason, rather than instinct, is man’s only means of survival. But without God’s role in reasoning there can be no valid conclusions. That’s why I believe so heavily in Ayn Rand’s philosophy—I think objectivism is a restoration of God’s intention for how people are supposed to live while on earth. The central flaw in her reasoning is that this knowledge had to be revealed to her by God, so her statements on “mystics” must be viewed through the lens of theism, not atheism. What was the central problem of mystical teaching? Absolute, self-hating altruism. The Church represented for Ayn Rand the total surrender of the mind and self for the purposes of a self-righteous few. In a collectivist nation, the ideal faith is atheism. But religion can, of course, offer comfort while true believers (metaphorically speaking) take on the role of useful idiots in service to the state. Indeed, the Church has often presented itself as a tool for controlling people. Ayn Rand can hardly be blamed for rejecting the idea of state control over the individual mind. She can hardly be blamed for rejecting the Church given how the state exploited it. The problem was that she was, for lack of a better term, a prophetess who denied she was one and rejected the God who have her the vision. She stole God’s message for believers and the world, claimed it as her own, sold a lot of books, and died empty.

Logic is necessary, taking a lesson from Ayn Rand, for human survival. It is a gift God gives us. It is how God reveals Himself to us. It is only that we properly attribute all knowledge as coming from God that we are said to have faith. Because the mind is incapable of functioning under the influence of sin, faith is required to understand any reality beyond ourselves. We have to trust that God has revealed Himself to us before any logical conclusion can be reached.



Then you haven’t understood me.


That is your prerogative, of course, but now you’re making too many unnecessary assumptions. Your premise is “If man wrote it down, it must be false.” You aren’t allowing for the logical possibility that man under God’s influence and direction could actually get it right. I’ve noticed often when people make assertions that the Bible is wrong or inaccurate they are ignoring both context and the Biblical tendency towards self-interpretation. My approach to Bible interpretation is to take it literally unless the Bible itself says not to. Psalms are artistic works, for example, and shouldn’t be taken literally as anything other than a Psalm. Proverbs are often riddles and paradoxes, thus they cannot be read as problematic contradictions. They’re intended to provoke thought. Job doesn’t reach a definitive conclusion on the problem of evil but rather reminds us that God created the universe and we exist for His pleasure. Rich, poor, good, evil...we are all the same in the presence of God, and the question of evil is ultimately irrelevant.

Man isn’t normally going to misinterpret things unless it’s intentional. Writing down a message for the world while in the presence of God is not something you would screw up.

I do believe people must be responsible for themselves. I don't believe people should rely solely on other people, in general.

Individual circumstances could very well modify my determination considerably.

AngelRho,

I'm going to ask you the same question again. Can you tell me using logic and reason how it is logically possible for something to have no beginning and no end? All you're doing is stating that it is so. No evidence. No logical reasoning to get there. I even showed how it could be possible.

You've stated the same thing over and over again and say it is logical. It is self-evident. How? Where is the logic? How is it self-evident with glaring holes? You say God has revealed himself? In what way? You're saying a whole bunch of pseudo logical babble.

Again, how is it logically possible for something to be eternal and have no end and no beginning?

You say a lot yet you say nothing.

https://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

How can something invisible be seen? Which people saw his invisible qualities? How is it possible to see invisible qualities?

You know you're like a robot regurgitating the same things over and over again.

You aren’t a very logical person. Something that is eternal by definition has no beginning or end. You don’t need evidence to prove something is logically possible. Your suggestion that someone could be in the same sense both eternal and have a beginning is not logically possible because it is a contradiction. Contradictions cannot exist.

Go back and read the Bible passage you referenced. The answer is in there. There’s also Psalm 19:1.

Personal responsibility just means taking ownership of your own behavior in response to things you control. I can’t control the weather, for example. But I can choose to allow the weather to shape my attitude or I can choose to resist it. I wasn’t born into money, but that doesn’t mean I can’t make future decisions that lead to wealth. Disabled people may have limited means to control their lives, so you can’t feel guilty for, say, being a paraplegic and physically doing nothing. If you can still communicate and if you can still think, then you retain control over your words and thoughts. Stephen Hawking never let his condition slow him down. Being physically incapable of things left him plenty of time to think, and those thoughts led to life as a celebrity. If you can think creatively, you can still achieve. That is all that personal responsibility is.

being able to think creatively is not a providence generously distributed. even if one has the gift of intelligence, having a clear expression channel is an irreplaceable part of the equation, if one's expressive intelligence is off, it is not going to work.

The point to what I wrote is I can make up BS, dress it with gold and it's still s**t.



Nice Dodge! Again, how is it logically possible for something to have no beginning and have no end. How can something truthfully be eternal?



Like I said, I can make up BS, dress it up with gold and be just as good as you but it's still BS. Of course that wasn't meant to be logical.



No s**t sherlock! Which is why God as you all describe him is a God of the contradiction.



nice cop out

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqTf1qWiezE

This is what you sound AngelRho. All you've done throughout this whole thread is given me a bunch of intellectual and pseudo- logical babble. All you do is use all kinds of circular reasoning.

All you're saying is that it is self evident that we have an eternal creator with no beginning and no end. Can you justify how this is logically possible? Yes or no? If yes, then please justify?

And, yes I will repeat the same things because you have this way of ducking and dodging with all kinds of complex words and long text without really saying much.

And, you're like the rest of conservatives who do this that I've encountered when you all can't answer questions thrown at you. You will duck and dodge and some will attack me. Only difference is you use more complex words and long text that I have to parse through.


You have a philosophical system based in the idea of what benefits you and selfishness. If you don't feel that telling the truth is beneficial to you you will deceive and lie. This is what you have essentially said to me. If it benefits you to lie then you will lie. If it benefits you to be honest you will be honest. And, that includes lying by omission. So, if I bought a bed from you as a salesman can I trust that you would tell me what I would be receiving for the money I pay? Can I trust that you will be truthful in that the bed will do what it says it does? Like if it has controls for controling hardness and softness will they truthfully work?


Let's say I buy a storage battery from you. You make the claim that it lasts for five years. But, what you don't tell me is that it will only last that time if I don't use it at all. So, could I expect to receive a full account of what I was receiving before buying anything from you. If it would benefit you then yes I would but if I was less likely to buy from you if I was given the full account then the answer would be no. And, that's the problem with your philosophy and I would trust you as far as I can throw you and I can't throw very far due to motor coordination issues.

All reasoning is essentially circular if you think about it.


I don’t think you understand what it means for something to be logically possible. And that’s not what I said at all. Not even close. It IS self-evident that God created the heavens and the earth. I did say that—perhaps not in so many words, but that was the intent. I never said that it was logically possible that it is self-evident that God created the heavens and the earth. Logical possibility deals strictly with anything that can be conceived of in the mind. You cannot conceive of a round square, for example. If you tried, how exactly would you describe it? Roundness contradicts the nature of something being square. It simply cannot exist, not even in the mind. It’s not logically possible.

I DID say that an eternal God with no beginning nor end was logically possible. Why? Because having neither beginning nor end fits the definition of what it means to be eternal. Eternal is simply a single word in the place of a longer description. You don’t need to specify that God has no beginning or end, all you have to say is that He is eternal. But if you say that God is eternal but began to exist, then you have a contradiction. Either God is eternal or He is not. You can’t say God is eternal and God is not eternal. It’s not logically possible for God to be both.


If it benefitted someone to lie, then, HONESTLY, heck yeah, I’d lie. If it benefitted me to do so, it would be moral and virtuous to be dishonest.

The problem you refuse to see is dishonesty does more harm to self than good. The need to deceive someone rather than make money through trade in value stems from the tendency of some people towards greed. Selfishness is a virtue. Greed is not.

Greed is defined as the desire to have things one neither earns nor deserves. When you give someone you love a gift, you are rewarding that person for the the value they represent to you. You aren’t giving in the strictest sense, but rather trading value for value. To receive a gift you didn’t ask for is to express gratitude for the esteem another person has for you—you accept their love in return for how well you care for them. Both the giver and receiver are acting in their own self-interest because of the value they have for the other person. Greed, however, is the opposite. Greed means accepting the gift because you are entitled to it. You have no compunction to earn it. You expect someone you don’t care about to care about you. You don’t do anything for the other person to deserve the gift. And in that case, accepting the gift doesn’t make you a friend. It makes you a thief, a looter, a parasite.

Greed is evil because it destroys the value and humanity of the greedy person. If you act deceitfully, people will not trust you. So if I sell you a faulty mattress and refuse any exchange or refund, you’re not going to buy from me again. But what makes this most immoral is not the harm that comes to the consumer (you). If I’m being greedy and demanding things I haven’t earned or deserved, there is no real exchange in value. You can pay me a million dollars in cash for a worthless mattress and the money becomes nothing but paper. It’s legal counterfeit, and its purchasing power means you are robbing from others when you buy things from them. The question is this: if money has no value, why do you want it? Why do you want ANYTHING that has no value? The greedy and deceitful mind is working apart from reason. Without a reasoning mind, the human organism dies. And if you were aware that someone only had money because he stole it, would you still be as willing to sell him things? It’s more reasonable to only trade with others HONESTLY and to only trade with HONEST people. It benefits the individual more to be honest.

There are times and places when honesty is deserved. The battlefield in war is not the proper place to give away your position to the enemy. Football teams don’t share their playbooks. Chess players don’t reveal their strategy from the opening move, though smart chess players will memorize games and their outcomes and can quickly recognize patterns as they unfold. What about people who face discrimination? Is it wise to disclose certain kinds of irrelevant information when that might cost you a job? Personally, I see nothing at wrong with enjoying a glass of wine, a bottle of beer, or even a chilled glass of a good cognac or whisky. It’s a good way to relax and does no harm. Well...the trouble is I work for a Baptist church and I live in a conservative area. Church staff tend to be held to a different standard than other church members, so openly discussing my attitudes about alcohol could easily cost me a job. Since one has nothing to do with the other—I don’t drink at Saturday gigs if I ever have one, and I can function perfectly well even if I’ve been up all night at a bar or a party—it would be STUPID to elaborate on how I stock my wine rack and liquor cabinet. They don’t need to know that. It’s none of their business. And traditional sexual morality aside, you don’t owe it to your partner how many or few partners you’ve had. I only wanted to know two things: 1. Are you on drugs? 2. Are you clean (no diseases)? I felt no need to discuss my level of experience, and I really didn’t want to hear about hers, either. There’s no need to discuss things like race, HIV status, pregnancy, age, orientation, etc. when it comes to getting a job or eating in a restaurant. If it’s not relevant, you don’t volunteer it.

I would think that’s reasonable for anyone.

---

"Eat, Drink, And Be Merry";

On the Other 'Right Hand'

If 'You' Believe in the

Protestant Work Ethic, According to 'Weber':

"Weber posited that the spirit of capitalism integrated
a philosophy of avarice coloured with utilitarianism.
[7] Weber also says that, according to Protestant Ethic,
"Wealth is thus bad ethically only in so far as it is a
temptation to idleness and sinful enjoyment of life,
and its acquisition is bad only when it is with the
purpose of later living merrily and without care".

Guess What, i Live Merrily Without Any Worries

And Spread Love Every WHere i Go

With Empty Pockets;

i Tend to

Agree with

The Teachings of Jesus

As Such More Than Any

Frigging Protestant Work

Ethic, Designed to Make Us

All Slaves to the Almighty Dollar...

If You Wish to Enjoy Heaven, Only In A

Dirt Nap Dead; More Power to 'Your' 'OverlordS' iNDeed...

Meanwhile, Continue Trying to Change 'Trademark JeSuS' iNTo Trump, if You Love,

Per Effect Here; You Surely Won't Be Among the Minority of 'Evangelical White Christians'...

AND ALL THeiR
Concocting Brew

Continuing This

Capitalistic

Protestant

Work Ethic

Cauldron Stew;

NO, Not into that
Kind of 'BLacK Witch Craft' Now;

More Appropriately Green Print

SHades of Totally Dead Dollar Bills;

Just SHells on A Beach With No LiVinG Love At All Now...

Or Shall We Review the Microcosm of HeLL ON EartH iN Lies

These Days All That Sits 'Right' In the House And Senate AS Such...

'EViL CiRCuS' Is in

Town The

SHow

Is Still Free

For ALL On 'Bad News'...

WHeRE Down Is Up

And Left Is Right Now...

JusT All ParT oF A NeWeR AGE RaPTurE...

Thousand, Two Thousand Years, No TiME HeaR...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greed

---

AngelRho,

Answer the f*****g question already and quit ducking and dodging.

How is it logically possible for something to simply be eternal?

A finite whole is greater than, or equal to, any of its parts

This could be accepted as self-evident and I do accept that it is self-evident. Let's say that I did not for some reason and I had doubts. I can demonstrate through various means that this proposition holds up as true. Even the properties of addition show this to be true especially the Commutative and Associative properties.

I already answered the question. You obviously don’t want to understand what “logically possible” means. I’ve already explained what it means for something to be logically possible. Have a good day.

I know what the f**k it means.

Let's reword the question. Maybe you're not understanding what I'm asking. How is it possible in any way, shape or form for any entity that has no beginning or end to exist? And, this time don't dodge the question.