Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You seem to be personifying both existence and individuality, expressing them as though they are beings/entities/agents. This is despite explicitly stating otherwise in the case of the former, and distancing the latter from an equivalent that merely comes with the sour taste of the supernatural (when your definition isn't really offering something that doesn't).

What I see is a series of word games whereby you profess theists and the spiritual to be mistaken, and then go on to express equivalent thoughts/feelings but with less explicitly spiritual terminology.

At 5/18/11 01:37 PM, CacheHelper wrote: The tree was made first, it existed before man did. "Don't eat from the tree" was the first thing God said to man. There was no "before the dilemma".

Yeah. Bad question on my part.

Would there be no free will in the Garden without the Tree of Knowledge in it?

Is not the existence of a choice to disobey God dependent on both the circumstance that provides the means, as well as the corresponding commandment from God?

Not the only choice, but it was the only way man could choose to disobey God.

Is it only free will if there is a fair opportunity to disobey God?

Is it not free will if there is fair opportunity to merely try or think to disobey God?

There is no "before Genesis".

I'm referring to the ten commandments. In every Bible I've openned the Ten Commandments were either on the inside cover or a few pages before the story begins. (I realize that doesn't give me enough information to say that most Bibles do that.)

If the tree was blocked by a flaming sword then Adam and Eve wouldn't be able to eat from it. This is a problem because they have to actually eat from the Tree of Knowledge to disobey God. If they can't eat from the tree at all then they can't disobey God... not even if they choose to. Not being able to disobey God is a contradiction of free will.

The tree had to be just as easily acceptable as all of the other trees so they could CHOOSE to eat from it. It was a choice... not a forced decision due to a lack of options.

Is the choice to stay out of the Garden after banishment a forced decision due to a lack of options?

Is the distinction here that God never said to Adam and Eve, "do not return to the Garden."?

The distinction is that the tree represents mans ability to choose to disobey God and the other is just a place.

Be fair. The other is a place to which Adam and Eve could choose to try to return to.

So that's it? Limiting options contradicts free will when the options concern a symbol of free will... but not at any other time? So what was all that stuff about being able to try and think as oppose to do? Does this render any following limitation of choice (by God) no longer a contradiction of free will, as no following choice is representative of all choice? Or is all choice representative of all choice?

At 5/17/11 01:24 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

{ If God made it so that they could not eat the fruit: it would be a contradiction of free will. } and { God made it so that they could not get back into Eden: this is not a contradiction of free will. } Are we on the same page?

This again? I just explained it...

Here's how I responded, "There were two conditions given. You've only quoted one. It is ambiguous as to whether you're affirming both."

The tree isn't just a tree... it's a choice. It represents the ability to choose to disobey God. Because there was a tree God told them they can't eat from Adam and Eve now had the ability to choose to obey God, and not eat from the tree, or to disobey God and eat from the tree anyway.

If the tree was impossible to reach, or didn't exist... then Adam and Eve could never eat from the tree. Not being able to eat from the tree removes their ability to disobey God. Not being able to disobey God is a contradiction of free will.

They had no free will before they were given the dilemma?

Eating from the tree was the only choice to be made in the Garden?

To whom do we give credit for naming the birds and livestock?

They had not the ability to sin before they were given the dilemma?

Is not the existence of a choice to disobey God dependent on both the circumstance that provides the means, as well as the corresponding commandment from God?

Remember, God said "don't eat from the tree..." not "don't think about eating from the tree".

In most Bibles, you'll find God commanding us not to think certain things before you hit Genesis.

Not being able to go one place does not remove the option of choosing were to go. You can even choose to go to the place you can't reach. You might not ever make it, but you're free to try.

As would be the case if the Tree of Knowledge was rendered inaccessible by say... a flaming sword, as was the Tree of Life.

Is the distinction here that God never said to Adam and Eve, "do not return to the Garden."?

At 5/16/11 01:35 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Being born a sinner involves something called "original sin". [...] it does indeed state that all people are born with sin (or as sinners). To clarify, I don't think 'original sin' is an action that we do, but it's a trait (or something similar) passed on from Adam the moment he ate from the Tree.

So, would it be fair to say that Adam and Eve were not born sinners (since their births preceeded original sin)?

As far as humans having the innate ability to sin... [ character fluff ]

I did some research and I'm told that man does not have to sin, but we all do; either by choice (we don't care what God said) or by ignorance (we don't know what God said). I don't know... is that still innate?

Do you distinguish between the ability to act and the act itself? i.e....

Do you make a distinction between the following statements:
1. Humans have an innate ability to sin.
2. Humans are innately sinners.

i.e... when you ask { is that still innate? } do you mean to reflect on { whether humans have an innate ability to sin } or { whether humans innately sin } or do you see no difference?

I'm not an expert... I'm sorry I used the word innate.

Fine. I'll bite on the expert thing. What does it matter to our discussion that you're not an expert? I'm not an expert either.

***

{ If God made it so that they could not eat the fruit: it would be a contradiction of free will. } and { God made it so that they could not get back into Eden: this is not a contradiction of free will. } Are we on the same page?

"It really makes you think"

Fuck I hate that expression. Of all the responses, we have to nail down exactly the thing 'it' isn't really making us do - at least not to any degree worth singling out.

Being stupefied isn't the same thing as being deep in thought. Though I guess if you're thinking, "Wow we're small," you're thinking something, so +1 for technicality.

Maybe I'd be ok with it if it was actually meant to be ironic.

At 5/13/11 02:57 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 5/12/11 06:15 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: "God cannot do everything" does not answer the question, "where then do bad things come from?"

You're correct, it doesn't answer the question by itself .... and yes, I agree that the other things I said are supporting arguments...

It's a multi-step answer where by the conclusion is derived from several premises. The notion that evil does not come from God is not one of those premises.

however, having supporting arguments does not change the overall topic of the discussion. After all, the question was about God... not man. 'Why does God...' the answer is 'Because God...' God is the subject, not man. Thus the point of my response was to explain God and his actions, not mans.

I'm not saying the point of your response was to explain mans actions.

You can put it in any sequence you want. You can explicitly implicate man or not. You can tell me the overall topic of the discussion is jello. It does not change the logical relationship that you extablished between the notion that [ God is not omnipotent ] and the notion that [ evil does not come from God ]. According to your construct, the former is part of a proof for the latter, the former is a supporting argument for the conclusion - not the other way around.

***

But fine. If that tangents dead, let's go back to the part you originally left for dead...

"At this point I'd like to stop and remind you that the word "innate" is just one word out of lots of words that I used and put together to form sentences and paragraphs that convey an overall general point. That point being that, contrary to popular belief, God cannot do everything."

How is that pertinent?

Was there a point when I was arguing that "innate" wasn't a word in a sentence in a paragraph?
Was there a point when I alleged that you weren't arguing that God cannot do everything?

Or was this just an underhanded and patronizing means to tell me to stop looking at some of the more specific points you'd made (particularly one's involving the word innate)? Cause that's what I took from it. And that's why I responded by telling you that, in so many words, lesser points are important too.

Cause regardless of how much focus you personally want to give it... it's relevant.

No more so then my drunken friend would have been allowed to stay in the bar had he refused to leave.

My answer is dependent on the issue below...

Now you're on the right track!

There were two conditions given. You've only quoted one. It is ambiguous as to whether you're affirming both. In order for me to respond to the meat of your post (the big chunk I'm about to cut out) you should actually address what I asked you.

I don't know. [ Please watch the character fluff ]. All I know is what the story tells me. The baby thing was just a terrible example of me trying to explain their type pure, innocent, thought. My bad.

I'm going to take a long way back on this one (like thats a surprise).

When you say human beings have an innate ability to sin, is this equivalent to saying that human beings are born sinners? Would it be fair to make the following distinction: that Adam and Eve had the innate ability to sin, but were not born sinners?

At 5/12/11 02:39 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Except "God cannot do everything" is indeed, my overall general point. It's why the explanation both starts, and ends with that very statement.

This is third-grade stuff man...

The reason supporting and concluding remarks are arranged that way is because there's more to their relationship than their relative locations on a page or in a wall of text.

"God cannot do everything" does not answer the question, "where then do bad things come from?"

It's employed to support the conclusion (which answers the question): "The wrongs of the world are created by mans free will and their innate ability to sin..." or alternatively "So, when you look at the world and you see bad people doing bad things, don't blame God... blame man. God isn't responsible for murder, the murderer is responsible for murder."

If you're so stubborn that you absolutely can't admit that "God cannot do everything" isn't your overall general point (by which we both obviously mean conclusion), then can you atleast admit that it is a supporting argument?

Genesis: 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

He drove them out... a drunk guy was driven out of a bar last night by the bouncer. The drunk left willingly... out of fear... but still willingly. He had the option to stay there... but it would have resulted in getting punched in the face.. like, really hard. So the drunk made a willing decision to run away.

Alright. Thought experiment. If Adam had refused to be driven out, would God have let him stay?

They were free to try to get back into Eden... it's not like God cast a curse on them that removed that thought from existence. There were no "God puppet-strings" stopping them from trying to walk back into Eden. There was a giant flaming sword that would burn them to shit as it cut them into a million pieces... but if they wanted to walk into it, they were more then welcome to do so.

So God made it so that they could not get back into Eden: not a contradiction of free will.

If God made it so that they could not eat the fruit: it would be a contradiction of free will.

Are we on the same page?

Yes, babies do have an innate ability to sin. They're selfish and greedy, for starters... also, there's this little thing called "original sin"... which I don't know much about.

Are babies selfish and greedy due to their knowledge? Is the distinction between a baby's relationship with sin and Adam and Eve's relationship with sin that Adam and Eve were not selfish or greedy?

At 5/11/11 06:47 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: I asked two questions

correction: expressed two caveats.

At 5/11/11 02:53 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Not in the context of the situation. The original post was, and I'm paraphrasing from memory so it's a rough translation at best, "Why would a God who can do anything allow bad things to happen?".

So I answered the question. It's all in the story of Adam and Eve. The answer is sort of a multi-step answer.
-1) God cannot do everything. (God cannot contradict himself)
-2) God gave man free will.
-3) God created man free from knowledge of evil and sin
-4) Man disobeyed God, ate from the tree, and learned of evil
-5) Man began to sin (murder, rape, etc...)
-6) God, although powerful enough to stop it, can't halt mans evil actions because it would be a contradiction of item 2 (free will). *See item 1.

So, when you look at the world and you see bad people doing bad things, don't blame God... blame man. God isn't responsible for murder, the murderer is responsible for murder.

Then I'm glad we can agree that the "overall general point" isn't that "God cannot do everything", but rather "God cannot do everything" is one of several arguments from which your "overall general point" is derived - One of several points along side the notion that human beings have an "innate ability to sin." So let's not downplay either as 'just some collection of words making sentences' eh?

How so, the story doesn't specify how they left Eden. It just says that their punishment for eating from the tree was banishment.

How so what? I asked two questions and called your interpretation a stretch. What are you 'how so'ing?

I don't know how they left, nor do I care... their journey out of Eden isn't relevant to the story.

It's relevant to the issue at hand.

What the hell, are you Yoda? Does that make me Luke Skywalker? Fuck yeah... such it jerk-wads, I'm a fucking Jedi

Do you distinguish between "trying" and "doing"? You say they couldn't go back. Then you say they could try to go back.

Do babies have an innate ability to sin? You say humans have an innate ability to sin. So, do human babies as well?

At 5/10/11 02:06 PM, CacheHelper wrote: I don't know, I guess it all depends on how you want to look at it.

Ok. We'll try something simpler. Does a baby have an innate ability to sin?

At this point I'd like to stop and remind you that the word "innate" is just one word out of lots of words that I used and put together to form sentences and paragraphs that convey an overall general point. That point being that, contrary to popular belief, God cannot do everything.

Like any greater point, lesser ones tend to be made to corroborate it. You know this, just like I know words go together to make sentences and paragraphs. If you can stop being patronizing and aversive, I can stop telling you things you already know.

And by the way, given the context, "God cannot do everything," is actually further from the point than "God doesn't let people starve... man does..."

Yet, you completely neglect the fact that, according to the story, Adam and Eve were banished by God from the Garden.

lol, it took me a while to figure out what you were trying to get at... why don't you just clarify your thoughts?

I gave you the punchline in my very first response to you. Adam and Eve's banishment is a case study. And while you may be content that your very long stretch of an interpretation explains away the double standard... 1) it does not address the dilemma for which the story is one instance, 2) nor is it in line with (as you had prefaced earlier) "popular Christian" sentiment.

Why didn't they just return to Eden later? They couldn't. [...] There was nothing stopping man from trying to go back

Do you distinguish between "trying" and "doing"?

At 5/9/11 02:02 PM, CacheHelper wrote: It wasn't that Adam and Eve couldn't sin... it's that they wouldn't because... well... they just never thought about it. They were free from such notions. However, they did still have free will and they did still have the physical traits necessary to commit such acts.

Really now, for the sake of clarity... the above translates to 1) Adam and Eve did not have an innate ability to sin or, 2) Adam and Eve did have an innate ability to sin.

Would you say Adam and Eve left the garden upon their own volition?

Yes and No... [...] Place blame where you will.

My question wasn't about placing blame. It was about identifying will and its corresponding action. Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden. At what point did they express a will to do so (directly)?

Here's the issue. You claim (I suppose any) means to prevent Adam and Eve from eating the fruit would contradict his giving them free will. Yet, you completely neglect the fact that, according to the story, Adam and Eve were banished by God from the Garden.

This goes back to what I said, which you seemed to have ignored: Circumstance does not preclude 'free will'.

At 5/7/11 02:39 PM, CacheHelper wrote: No... now I'm no expert, but I as I understand it sin was created by temptation. Adam and Eve were perfect and free from sin.

So then how is the ability to sin innate?

And how can something be innate (existing from birth/not learned through experience) but not God given?

Are you saying the ability to sin is innate for all of us who followed Adam and Eve?

They did not wrong and they lived in paradise. They had free will so they could do as they please, but they didn't sin because they didn't know how or know of temptation. That's where the snake comes in... he told them to eat from the tree of knowledge and learn of temptation. And when they did, they became imperfect and began to sin. God did not make sinners... Gods creations became sinners when they ate from the tree. Why didn't God stop them from eating from the tree? Because he couldn't... he can't contradict himself and since Adam and Eve had free will, they could do as they please. He could only tell them not to, but the choice was ultimatly theres.

Why did God give people free will? Because he didn't want pupets.

If God stopped them from eating from the tree then they would no longer have free will?

Would you say Adam and Eve left the garden upon their own volition?

At 5/6/11 12:42 PM, CacheHelper wrote: innate

God given?

God couldn't stop them from doing so.

Circumstance does not preclude 'free will' unless you mean to argue that 'free will' only exists free of any other circumstance (which is something you can't possibly be arguing for).

At 4/29/11 06:45 PM, Conal wrote: I really haven't heard a good method. I'm sure the porn stars would knows. Or Google.

Those little 'quick touch' nose trimmer things work pretty good for balls, but you can't use the as-seen-on-tv versions (they're not sharp nor fine enough so they just tug and pinch). They should get you down to the skin. It's just time consuming.

Give your balls a quick touch.

We're a cold mistress.

I haven't taken the test, but I'm guessing I'm borderline 100 at most.

Chdonga, can an opinion or belief be criticized without rendering the critic an asshole?

At 4/25/11 11:07 PM, EpicFail wrote: Prove me wrong

.... why? What would that accomplish? What would it matter to you?

Uh well... it'd be impossible for me to get my license without an accredited degree?

At 4/25/11 12:17 AM, jak3434 wrote:

At 4/25/11 12:15 AM, slipknotfan33 wrote:

At 4/25/11 12:10 AM, ThePhantomGamer wrote: Desperate much?

nope its not to fap

Well check it out anyways.

...and here I thought I was giving you plenty of attention...

At 4/24/11 09:14 AM, yonokowhat wrote: they just want to be the dude with the big dick who can use a lot of big words and really confusing abstract shit to confuse or argue against his rival so he may win

As someone who doesn't understand what's being said, by your own admission, you're not exactly in a good position to make that claim.

At 4/23/11 04:25 AM, The-universe wrote: I smell a Poe. But this is going to be entertaining nonetheless.

Please tell us how science (a process which obtains knowledge about naturally occurring phenomena) managed to point towards Christianity (a supernaturally based belief system).

Queue the Einstein quotes in 3...2...1....

I think the context under which he's saying Christianity is right is a bit more focused than what you seem to be responding to.

Here's what's go me confused though.

The rational actor, as I understand it, was not some tenant of the Age of Reason, but is a generalization of human behavior with respect to socioeconomic (or just plain economic) forces. Being such, it by no means disagrees with the notion that human beings are flawed or prone to sin. And considering that economics is a soft science, it's weird for Zeeb to pit science against it.

Then again, history ain't my thing.

Metatron is no match for optimus prime, even with the All Spark cube.

Since it's every human's right to self defense....

... free pistols for everyone!

The claim [ You can cure cancer by willing it out of the body ] is not equivalent to [ you can cure cancer without medical intervention ], although the latter does follow from the former.

The claim [ you can cure cancer without medical intervention ] disputes [ you cannot cure cancer without medical treatment ], and subsequently so does [ You can cure cancer by willing it out of the body ].

The criticism [ there is no substantial evidence that cancer can be cured by willing it out of the body ] is a rationale for the counter claim [ you cannot cure cancer by willing it out of your body ].

The counter claim [ you cannot cure cancer by willing it out of your body ] is not equivalent to [ you cannot cure cancer without medical intervention ], nor does disputing the latter subsequently dispute the former.

The claim [ faith helps ] is not equivalent to [ you can cure cancer by willing it out of the body ], nor [ you can cure cancer without medical intervention ], nor do the two latter follow the one former.

Therefore, [ faith helps ] disputes neither [ you cannot cure cancer by willing it out of your body ], nor [ you cannot cure cancer without medical intervention ].

***

And that'll be my last post for the night. Sorry mods.

At 4/19/11 03:48 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Jordan didn't simply pull this out of his ass.

... wait. Is that what you thought I was trying to prove? That Jordan pulled the story out of his ass (I guess unprovoked)?

At 4/19/11 03:48 AM, WolvenBear wrote: The criticism has some ground.

Really? Like what?

Unfortunately, as I keep pointing out, I seem to be the only one who looked into it.

Is this more of your "look guys I'm skeptical" spiel, or is it actually relevant? Or, same question, different phrasing: did you complete this thought with the next two sentences or not complete the thought?

It's not unfair to say that buying into a claim hook, line, and sinker makes you a sucker. Yet, nothing about my comments, from the first one, seems to indicate I've done this.

I'm pretty sure I already told you I don't care if you're skeptical or a sucker. What I care about is your distinction between skepticism and disbelief, which you still refuse to clarify.

We're going to correct a mistake here. Both Variation A and B [...] Since C...

Can you tell me what those are variations of - why I'm calling them variations?

While a few points have been brought up that are interesting, there has been little honest criticism of the case. Most of that has been brought up in the last page or two. Even you, the most intelligent adversary on this, are trying to focus more on my logical shortcomings than the issues of the case.

The matter of what conclusions can logically be drawn from the case is an issue of the case - such that it could subsequently be determined whether or not it is even a case.

If we have a claim that A is never B, and then one example whereby A is alleged to be B, the example does not prove the original claim wrong.

It does actually.

Read it again. There's an important distinction to make between what you said and what I said.

No it wasn't nor isn't.

Well, actually it was.

Uhh...this person I'm replying to has yet to supply a peer reviewed article stating that cancer can be cured by willing it out of the body.

So yea, that was the claim I responded to. It went on repeatedly:

If you're maintaining now, that the claim above is equivalent to "it's impossible to cure cancer without therapy," (which it isn't depending on the semantics of "cure") the article you linked to to originally dispute it, well, doesn't. The article is not teaching you how to overcome cancer without (medicinal/chemo) therapy.

Additionally, your followups in which you make the following cases...

"belief that you ill get better makes a difference"
"faith helps"

... also do not dispute the notion that cancer cannot be cured without therapy. Did you mean to imply otherwise?

So, you're simply not correct here. Jordan didn't simply pull this out of his ass. People repeatedly goaded him and claimed it didn't happen long before he pulled this story out. You're wrong.

Are you merely disputing chronology or is this an incomplete thought?

You know that's a fallacy.

It's not. Sorry.

Fine then. If you won't listen to me, maybe you'll listen to you.

You asked: "I see no way around it. If a woman has cancer, and gets better, without treatment [...] Well, what the hell else is there? Did the tooth fairy cure it?"

You have said: "This woman could be a freak of nature, she could be blessed by God, she could have an extra organ we don't."

Hasn't part of your case been that it can't ethically be taken to task?

No. I've been against the idea of peer review, which demands repeating the tests. THAT is horribly unethical.

I believe this issue left off with Sol saying "what to poop" to "If humans can determine who will and won't get better, and we can't, then humans are damn near God now."

Is it a correct assumption of mine to predict your stance on terminal illness goes as follows: that person you don't treat because they were branded terminal could have actually gotten better had he been treated.

It doesn't mean that people cannot go over her records...she's given them to about 100 people so far. If there is a glaring problem it should be obvious. If the test was a mammogram, then bring that up. No further tests are needed. In and of itself, that is grounds to question this. If it was a biopsy...well, then there's less room for error.

Finish your thought. If no clinical error was made, or can be found to have been made, then [insert something relevant to the matter of the case being taken to task]. If the test was a mammogram, then by brining that up, [insert something relevant to the matter of the case being taken to task].

You guys, Fisher Price knows the truth about our place in the cosmos...

Disagree.

At 4/17/11 04:21 PM, JordanD wrote: (ps. Bacchanalian, sacred geometry IS a science. Just not a kind that you're used to)

Not by the subjects they concern, but rather by systemic constructs, how does sacred geometry differ from the science I'm used to? I'm particularly interested in epistemological grounds.

Additionally, when you say that faith and science fit together seamlessly, do you mean to include spirit science and sacred geometry by the term 'science'?