Perception of Free Will

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by bogomil

 

I'm not understanding. The description of this forum says to share your own faith based experiences. Nonetheless, I am not one of those people you type about.

You are spewing out self-proclaimed 'absolutes' right and left, but I'll give you, that you often also aren't quite as insane as the hard-core christian evangelists preaching here.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by bogomil

 

I'm not understanding. The description of this forum says to share your own faith based experiences. Nonetheless, I am not one of those people you type about.

You are spewing out self-proclaimed 'absolutes' right and left, but I'll give you, that you often also aren't quite as insane as the hard-core christian evangelists preaching here.

edit on 25-10-2011 by bogomil because: syntax

They are surely not self proclaimed. How can you counter something you do not know?

Originally posted by jhill76

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by bogomil

 

I'm not understanding. The description of this forum says to share your own faith based experiences. Nonetheless, I am not one of those people you type about.

You are spewing out self-proclaimed 'absolutes' right and left, but I'll give you, that you often also aren't quite as insane as the hard-core christian evangelists preaching here.

edit on 25-10-2011 by bogomil because: syntax

They are surely not self proclaimed. How can you counter something you do not know?

edit on 25-10-2011 by jhill76 because: (no reason given)

By either being rational enough to accept, that

1/ The 'unknown' best can be considered from an agnostic position,

2/ Alternatively trying to find a basic common communication platform.

3/ Not making assumptions of the competence of opposition, before you're as sure as you can be. What do you e.g. know about MY firsthand knowledge and experince on religious matters?

reply to post by bogomil


Ah yes, religious matters. Man's view of God. As well, how do you know my direct experince with the unseen and what I speak of.

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by bogomil

 

Ah yes, religious matters. Man's view of God. As well, how do you know my direct experince with the unseen and what I speak of.

I relate factually to your posts, which contain enough unvalidated 'absolutes' to make a basis for my criticism.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by bogomil

 

Ah yes, religious matters. Man's view of God. As well, how do you know my direct experince with the unseen and what I speak of.

I relate factually to your posts, which contain enough unvalidated 'absolutes' to make a basis for my criticism.

So that's the only reason. Because you can't validate it? You can go to the source, just ask God.

reply to post by jhill76


You wrote:

["Because you can't validate it?"]

Oh, deairy me. Have you ever heard about the 'burden of proof'?

It's not my job to invalidate your absurd claims, it's your job to validate them. Otherwise please 'prove' that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

Quote: [" You can go to the source, just ask God."]

If you insist of making a fool of yourself, be my guest. Why on earth should a figment of your rampant fantasies be a reference-point to me?

reply to post by bogomil


By this post, you are doing this on the basis of discounting, because if you truly wanted to know, you would ask God to validate for you.

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by bogomil

 

By this post, you are doing this on the basis of discounting, because if you truly wanted to know, you would ask God to validate for you.

Are you unable to read my rather simple posts?

Or are you so brainwashed, that thinking outside your own circle-argumentation is an impossibility for you?

You're primitively responding with: "Because....it's true" to me. I can equally simplistic and monomaniacally answer back: "The flying spaghetti monster is TRUE.....because".

reply to post by bogomil


I have looked at your post history. Most of all your posts, you post in the religious forums. I must ask: What has made you want to fight tooth and nail to debate it?

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by bogomil

 

I have looked at your post history. Most of all your posts, you post in the religious forums. I must ask: What has made you want to fight tooth and nail to debate it?

A straight question, deserving a straight answer:

Because religion (and similar ideologies) is much more than just the intrinsic 'message' meant for the individual (or consenting adults). It's also a great source of interfering misery, when fascist factions run amok in monopoly-seeking. (A situation where Jihad, insane christian soldiers, Kali thugees, Nazism. Stalinism and Mao'ism only differ in the wrappings).

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by bogomil

 

I have looked at your post history. Most of all your posts, you post in the religious forums. I must ask: What has made you want to fight tooth and nail to debate it?

A straight question, deserving a straight answer:

Because religion (and similar ideologies) is much more than just the intrinsic 'message' meant for the individual (or consenting adults). It's also a great source of interfering misery, when fascist factions run amok in monopoly-seeking. (A situation where Jihad, insane christian soldiers, Kali thugees, Nazism. Stalinism and Mao'ism only differ in the wrappings).

Understood. But, what if you took man out of the picture, and his views. What about God then?

reply to post by jhill76


You wrote:

["Understood. But, what if you took man out of the picture, and his views. What about God then?"]

What about the flying spaghetti monster then? It's just a speculation on the unknown.

Even a 'primary cause' is a speculation, fine for the individual, but far from being a universal 'truth'.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by jhill76

 

You wrote:

["Understood. But, what if you took man out of the picture, and his views. What about God then?"]

What about the flying spaghetti monster then? It's just a speculation on the unknown.

Even a 'primary cause' is a speculation, fine for the individual, but far from being a universal 'truth'.

If God himself showed himself to you, how would you even know it's God by your reasoning?

Originally posted by jhill76

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by jhill76

 

You wrote:

["Understood. But, what if you took man out of the picture, and his views. What about God then?"]

What about the flying spaghetti monster then? It's just a speculation on the unknown.

Even a 'primary cause' is a speculation, fine for the individual, but far from being a universal 'truth'.

.

If God himself showed himself to you, how would you even know it's God by your reasoning?

Look up philosophical scepticism

reply to post by jhill76

If any questions, feel free to ask.

I'm pretty sure I saw that movie,

The Adjustment Bureau
Do we control our destiny, or do unseen forces manipulate us? A man glimpses the future Fate has planned for him and realizes he wants something else. To get it, he must pursue across, under and through the streets of modern-day New York the only woman he's ever loved. On the brink of winning a seat in the U.S. Senate, ambitious politician David Norris (Damon) meets beautiful contemporary ballet dancer Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt) - a woman like none he's ever known. But just as he realizes he's falling for her, mysterious men conspire to keep the two apart. David learns he is up against the agents of Fate itself - the men of The Adjustment Bureau

The Adjustment Bureau (2011)
106 min - Romance | Sci-Fi | Thriller - 4 March 2011 (USA)
Director: George Nolfi
Writers: George Nolfi (screenplay), Philip K. Dick (short story "Adjustment Team")
Stars: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt and Michael Kelly

In the movie, it seems that a certain few people actually can win free will for themselves through definite demonstration of bucking the system to get what they really want. Would you agree with that?

reply to post by pthena


That movie was written by one from above. They think they can, but this is just Father testing you. Many times Father will withhold information even from all of heaven. At the end, the angel said, even we are tested.

That movie reveals a lot about what happens in the unseen. The plan they are holding looks very similar to the one above, but different. They also dont use those gizmos when adjusting. Many things were changed for hollywood.

reply to post by jhill76


By that rational, you basically just said that Phillip K. Dick and George Nolfi is God.

Originally posted by Absco
reply to post by jhill76

 

By that rational, you basically just said that Phillip K. Dick and George Nolfi is God.

Not at all. There are many here from above in the flesh living as people. Many won't admit it, as it will defeat their purpose and tasks.

reply to post by jhill76

That movie was written by one from above. They think they can, but this is just Father testing you. Many times Father will withhold information even from all of heaven. At the end, the angel said, even we are tested.

I've read a few works by Philip K. Dick. I enjoy his writing and speculation.

Philip K. Dick-Wikipedia
Philip Kindred Dick (December 16, 1928 – March 2, 1982) was an American novelist, short story writer and essayist whose published work is almost entirely in the science fiction genre. Dick explored sociological, political and metaphysical themes in novels dominated by monopolistic corporations, authoritarian governments and altered states. In his later works Dick's thematic focus strongly reflected his personal interest in metaphysics and theology. He often drew upon his own life experiences in addressing the nature of drug abuse, paranoia and schizophrenia, and transcendental experiences in novels such as A Scanner Darkly and VALIS.[6]

I personally call the genre Speculative Fiction, the kind that asks "what if?", by fleshing it out in story form certain aspects of the speculated theory are tested for realism. That's why I read fiction, much of the testing of theories is already done for the reader. From there, thinking readers may expand or challenge the theory.

My summary of what I think Dick was getting at would be that most people go through the motions of living without actually pressing the limits. Some few do press the limits.