thebeardslastcall

By taking it too seriously you mean applying it to things like God that make you uncomfortable when logic wins and "destroys everything" (that relates to God)? The whole point of philosophy is to use logic to identify and destroy uncomfortable truths to destroy everything religious and based on anti-rationality and lies and illogical beliefs. So if your everything is a lie, yes I mean to take it seriously enough to destroy that false belief set. You aren't there yet and may never get there if you keep rejecting logic where it's needed most for you to know the truth because you aren't ready for the truth this logic reveals yet as you cling to your mysticism and use different words to describe the situation (like calling it creativity) without understanding what they mean and that they don't actually counter or invalidate the logic presented against your beliefs. When you say logic is important you mean to say it's important so long as you can control where it applies and where it doesn't apply to protect your irrational sensibilities. You can trump one logic with a superior logic by showing the flaws or inadequacies in the logic, but not merely by saying 'insert magic creativity voodoo to invalidate your logic', which doesn't explain or teach anything or point to any flaws, but just says you think you're right without being able to explain why in any rational way.

Bold and underline is mine for emphasis. We already established he's anti-logic, so why keep trying to use it with him?

I thought I tied in some of my stuff back to the original topic fairly well and even the derailment I thought sort of answered the question. In that you go outside of time to go outside of existence, reality, and logic, which is where you need to go for God, because there's where he make believe lives, as the insanity of this conversation showed. If your mole keeps getting whacked in reality you take it out of reality where the hammer no longer exists and the mole is whack immune.

We aren't really talking about God though. We are talking about known concepts and logic and applying logic and reasoning to make sense of them and to show which are contradictory. You're defense basically boils down to God being unknown and therefore is able to be logically contradictory, which frankly is anti-philosophical. Also why are you ignoring the point that you're claiming to know the unknowable? Your position is irrational and you can't seem to admit that and just word-salad your way back to sounding like you're saying something that makes sense while simultaneously denying sense and logic on a philosophy forum. Can you admit you're being irrational or illogical in your belief in God? That you're both simultaneously claiming and denying definition to God? You're not going to convince anyone with that kind of talk, you're just going to teach others who have the same desire to be in the Christian group to toss word salads like yours at people to defend your irrationality and to confuse themselves into thinking they aren't just talking nonsense to get to fake believe in God and be part of the Christian crowd.

It's more interesting when you have some natural limiters on performance. IE, Can run a mile in X minutes and capable of naturally birthing healthy children isn't the same as someone who can't. Though it may be uncomfortable for some people to hear, you're not fully women if you can't give birth to new life and you're not fully man if you can't produce sperm or equivalent. Whole point of sexes is tied to ability to reproduce and which side of the puzzle you fit into on that and the natural limits that gives. If you can't do either of those roles you're playing a different game and aren't working under the same limitations, thus you're in a different competitive category. Isn't that also why they don't like doping, because it breaks the game if you're willing to hurt yourself and break some healthy limitations to achieve the goal? Running X miles and being okay and running X miles with drugs, but dropping dead shortly after isn't the same game. To me a level playing field is about working under the same fair constraints and then seeing who can perform best under those constraints. The more you remove constraints and break lines the more you break the nature of the game and the ability to have a 'fair' game.

So your God doesn't make logical sense and to be in his image you too are being illogical?

Do you not see it as a sort of contradiction that you're saying God is strange and mysterious and beyond categories and standard notions of existence, but also claiming to know him in a sense? If you believe in connecting God to Christianity and Jesus then you are also creating a 'non-strange' existential presence in reality and connecting 'real' properties to these 'unreal' ones of God and based on what? A desire to have them connected that isn't based in reality or reasonable inference, but purely based on some desire you haven't openly placed and admitted to? Problem with a lot of religious people is they connect strange things to reality without a proper logical connection. They say this super strange thing exists, but outside of existence, and therefore I can have my weird unexplainable results and beliefs in reality, because I've created this incomprehensible thing outside of reality that allows one to defy reason and logic and comprehension and to believe whatever they want about God, because once you say logic and reason can't apply you're shutting down and rejecting analysis, because it's impossible to analyze something on logic that defies logic. The truth however is that nothing truly defies the logic of the universe.

I think he was saying the friend is the temporal observer and god is the 'eternal' one and that the friend can be surprised, but god can't.

Could be more a puzzle pieces thing. Same puzzle then there will be a bad piece to fit, if you're of a different kind of puzzle then no piece from a bad puzzle will fit. Not so much being the same or different than it is being of compatible and incompatible types. Or put differently it isn't like vs different for everything, but for categories. Different types within the same category fit, while different categories don't mesh well. If you're in the abuser category the people are different in that one is the abuser role and one is the abused role, they're different, but the same category and they fit together. While if you're of a different category then you'll no longer fit into either one of those roles and won't be compatible with either an abuser or abused role. Same species, opposite sex. Likewise people with different ways of life are like different subspecies, only compatible with others of the same subspecies, but within that subspecies they have to be filling an opposing piece role to be compatible. If you like to be submissive you need a dominate partner. If you're of a different breed that likes to be on equal footing you won't attract to either a dominate or submissive person and only someone like yourself. Some levels of attraction and compatibility are inversive some are conversive.

What happens if they don't get a birth certificate or SIN number for the baby? Also that's selling kids into slavery. The kid didn't agree to it and the kid is the individual with agency that is then going to be put under the control of this contract which they didn't agree to. Can I sell people I don't own into slavery and then call that legit? I don't think so.

And no one just took the signs down as a bad joke and moved on unoffended. These people want to be offended and why they would think the signs were serious is a better question. Having a big meeting about it instead of even finding out who was responsible for them? This culture sure does love to have meetings about nothing and to be offended. Like people talking over a running water faucet about what to do about running the water instead of just stepping in, turning it off, and moving on without a word. "What are we going to do about the running water?!" "Can you believe someone left the water on and it just keeps going!" "Look at all that water being wasted, what are we going to do about it?" Silly people.

All powerful doesn't make any sense to me as a concept. I don't even know what people mean by it. It's self-contradictory. Just a grandiose term to inflate the idea of God and to try to shut down people's reasoning centers when questions arise and to get around the whole idea of things not making sense, because they think God is so grand it's okay if he doesn't make any sense as that just feeds into the notion that he's beyond our understanding which is the anti-reasoning part of religion that doesn't want you to overthink things because it's pointless with such a grand and great and 'all powerful' god.

I think predeterminism and determinism in this sense are not compatible. predeterminism implies all the future is in the present, which doesn't make sense. There is a common perceptual shift people make without realizing it that they try to take an outside of time perspective for a deterministic universe and what we would call the future being 'set' or 'determined' call this predetermined, which is an inside of time perspective. Thus I state people are often using two contradictory perspectives at the same time without realizing it. Using terms that are based on time and a perspective based outside of time at the same time, which doesn't make sense. The future is determined, but not 'predetermined'. It exists and is set in the future, but from inside of time perspective it hasn't been determined yet and thus in a manner doesn't exist yet, if you can understand that. Just as the past is set so is the future in the same manner, but the past isn't in the present nor is the future, but they are connected and deterministically related. I would also note that there are no 'outside of time' agents or perceptions. Thus outside perspectives are non-existent and merely a theoretical exercise in understanding the universe. There's no such thing as a being outside of time. Being is motion is time based. Non-motion is non-existence, thus any definition that puts God outside of time puts God into non-existence. Determinism is time itself in a fashion as it's the physics, logic, and flow of the universe that makes it exist. I agree that Christianity with hell is pretty evil in many ways, but to give a counter perspective and question, what's the alternative? What if to create any life and good you had to commit evil and thus your options are nothingness or to commit this evil to create life? Would not it be a greater evil to not create any existence and life than to do so knowing some would be damned to hell for eternity? (and yes I know this then gets into contradictions with other notions of God)

You can't guarantee resources for all lives. It's a ridiculous notion based on the idea that there are enough resources for everyone no matter how much you breed. Rabbit and grass thinking that deludes itself and is quite harmful to productive people and non-thieves. People that promote such ideas are insane and thieves masking their aggression under misguided right to life and sympathy for the poor ideas. These socialist ideas are quite toxic and anti-life in many ways. Guaranteed income is welfare... replacing welfare with welfare; you'd be right in thinking that makes no sense. A lot of these people are just perpetually relabeling things to sneak their wrong ideas in under a new label that people haven't shot down yet, because their proper names have gotten an appropriately bad rep.

Randomness, which could also be called non-determinism or non-causality, negates knowledge. It creates false knowledge and negates the relevance of knowledge. Determinism is a form of consistency in regards the rules, logic, and flow of the universe. Doesn't mean we'll understand that logic, but that it exists. Randomness in this context is a lack of consistency, breaking the laws of physics (not what we think they are, but what they actually are), based on no logic or causality, which is naturally and inherently unpredictable. Thus physics like gravity always exist and if they 'go away' for some reason it's due to some deeper logic or physics as opposed to some 'randomness' in the rules. Thus the base physics or rules or flow of the universe has a consistency to it and is deterministic. As regards free will you need some consistency for free will to be at all meaningful and to arise. A lack of consistency in the base causality of the universe would be a disruption to free will and thus anti-freewill in a fashion. Thus I contend determinism supports free will (if you have a definition that is possible) and that anything other than a deterministic universe would be 'more anti-freewill' than a deterministic universe. Thus you either, by this constraint of logic, think free will is an impossible concept or think that it exists in its most possible and strongest form in a fully deterministic universe.

Well it's complicated to explain and not easy to understand (my book has a whole chapter for it along with other chapters which relate, like a chapter on free will & consciousness, and frequent contention shows it's not easily understood), but put simply it's just that everything follows logical natural "laws" or "physics". That everything flows in a causal logical fashion and that the rules are consistent and nothing escapes these rules. Depending on your definition and understanding of randomness you can say this means no true randomness in the universe (no results unrelated to anything that prior existed). Some people think you need some sort of gap in determinism or causality for freewill but I disagree and think that randomness or non-causality, in this sense, would be anti-freewill, not pro-freewill.

Some definitions of determinism also specifically state it as being anti-freewill. I do not think all definitions of determinism are legit. The underlying concept holds without some of these derived definitions that don't fit with the underlying concept of a causal deterministic universe. Much of the trouble with discussing determinism comes with these conflicted definitions and with how some people group what they think logically follows from determinism into the definition, when what they think logically follows from determinism doesn't in fact logically follow.

Some people define it as such, but I think that's due to an erroneous interpretation of the consequences of determinism. Determinism doesn't mean predetermined or prescripted as that implies things are before they are in a sense. Events happen when they happen, but no sooner.

I believe free will and determinism are compatible, but don't believe there is such a thing as omnipotence or omniscience. And I was stating my view in regards to moral responsibility, which doesn't require knowing with 100% certainty. If I know there is a high likelihood of my actions leading to eternal damnation of others then whether or not it happens doesn't necessarily matter in regards to how I would be morally judged. If I set up an evil trap that could by chance kill someone and no one happens to fall into it, the fact that I ran that risk still means I was kind of evil for taking that chance for no moral reason. I was suggesting that you could call the Christian God view evil whether or not omniscience was had.

What would be the point of creating hell if no one was going to go there? Even a human can know what they're willing to do in some situations and what is possible. So doesn't take godly knowledge or omniscience to know he would create and send people to hell.

Ah right, because there are rich people and he's going to make them pay their fair share, which will solve everything. You're right, we're fine, feel the Bern!

How do you pay off debt with an even greater amount of debt? Inflation is more borrowing, more debt, with the federal reserve system. You can't inflate your way out of a bubble unless your strategy is to blow the bubble and then not pay because of chaotic bust and consequences.

Deficit versus debt, ah, right, that's the common angle. Meaning they're not overspending as much as in previous years or sometimes they speak in regards to planned increases in spending, but they're still spending more than they're taking in and increasing the debt every year. It's like saying last year I overspent by $2k and this year I only overspent by $1.7k, so I decreased the deficit! Very deceptive and dishonest way to look at it really and it's often present in a way that people will misunderstand what is meant. Spin central with a lot of these people who do nothing but make crap shiny all day every day to keep pushing their crappy agendas.

That's not the US national debt, and I didn't look at it, but could just be made up numbers to troll people. The US national debt is around $18 trillion currently. I have heard a democrat suggest Obama had been lowering the national debt (who may have heard it on TV and not bothered to check), so there's a chance this type of propaganda is viral and confusing lots of people. https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=us+national+debt&oq=us+national+debt&gs_l=hp.3..35i39j0i131j0j0i20j0l6.604.2369.0.2600.17.12.0.0.0.0.320.1991.0j4j4j1.9.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..9.8.1723.0.u7NwFu2xuxo

Logic dictates that there is no beginning and thus no need for a 'creator'. Reality goes back infinitely and has no beginning. Everything is 'caused', but there need not be any agency to any particular cause as that's something we associate with a being specifically or a particular type of reality and matter. There is no creator because there is no beginning. If there were a creator then how would that solve your problem, because you're saying there can be a creator, that was uncaused, to start off your causative universe. The classic "what created God?" problem. God suggests the universe has a start, needs a creator, but that this grand creator is free of these same needs. Time is motion and if there is no motion there is no life, no being, no creator, or agency. There are no beings or agents outside of time because that's a contradiction of terms. What do you mean by resurrected? A being that feels it is a continuation of a previous being? Stating that everything that can happen will happen does not mean everything happens or that anything in particular happens. It is merely an interpretation and restating of sorts of determinism that confuses people that don't understand what 'can' means because they are confused how this fits in with their free will. An identical copy of you will never be recreated, even in an infinite universe, but a similar being could emerge, though this not need be the case. The universe could 'count infinitely up and down' and never repeat a single integer while going on forever in both directions. All integers can and will happen and all non-integers can't and won't happen in this example. Each instant is unique in a sense and never repeats. These popular views of a God, creator, manipulator of time, and such, are a version of a simulated universe that is not infinite in the same way reality is. It places a start on time and a limit to the depth of reality such that events can repeat them selves in a sort of bit form, but in reality there is no limit to the depth or scale of matter and no being can recreate this infinite depth of space and time. It's also safe to assume that no being can live forever and thus could not maintain any simulation forever and any created simulation by a being (who must be in time, no god) would would to an 'end' as well in that it would eventually fail to maintain its 'simulated' life, which may also technically be real life.