Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of Cletus Nze

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Cletus Nze

Moral Argument / Is Morality subjective?
« on: January 18, 2011, 12:59:14 am »
Jnwaco wrote:

Quote from: forthelord
I know very little about this argument-can I have a definition of "rational" in steps 1 & 2?  Kan't argument, at first glance, seems to me to commit the fallacy of equivocation but I'd like to hear your definition first.

I'll link to it, since I don't think I could immediately improve upon the explanation:

But it's essentially saying that we have good reason to act morally, even when it may not benefit us.  If I alone see a man drop his wallet, I'm rational in returning the wallet to him, even if I know that I could keep the money and never be found out.  I would think that this premise is the one that might be challenged, but I don't know of how one would argue it unless they also attempt to justify bad behavior (keeping the wallet).

Keeping the wallet would imply living with the guilt. And such guilt is not something that can be dismissed as being only conceptual and therefore having no basis in reality. Even concepts are VERY real! And exert a powerful influence on us and our environment. To allow oneself to live in a psychic state whereby one finds it acceptable to keep property that does not belong to one and which one could return to the owner is to do oneself grave injury - even if one never actually expresses such behaviour overtly. It is the inclination that counts here - the volition. So it is is indeed in one's practical interest, both in the short and long term, to act - and even think as well as speak - morally.

Omniscience / Matthew 11:21 - Does it defend Molinism?
« on: January 17, 2011, 05:23:08 pm »
duckop wrote: mwalimu, if you're going to say weird stuff and deny that Christ's death was to save us and redeem us from our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 3:18; etc.) then please don't reply. I am not interested in hearing about the gospel of "Social Justice Jesus." Moreover, this thread is not for that topic .

Randy, thank you for your response. But there are still some difficulties.

(i) "We don't know the full circumstances under which they would have repented."

This would seem to be irrelevant. For it is of note that Jesus, at the very least, implied that HE knew of certain circumstances that would have led to the repentance of some that otherwise did not repent.

(ii) Even supposing all of the relevant  conjuncts come together to form a complete possible world, the  Messiah's coming at that time may have had overriding deficiencies to  the actual world.

This may be problematic for two reasons. (1) there does not seem to be any necessity that it must have been the Messiah's appearance, only "the miracles." If the appearance of the Messiah is to be included in this set, then, (2) God would have rearranged history for those people who would have repented to be born in the time of, or after, the Messiah's coming.

(iii) Considering there may have been
"overriding deficiencies to  the actual world" had some of those people repented.

Again, this is the very problem I am addressing. For it seems to contradict the believe that Middle Knowledge entails
"such persons would not have responded  to special revelation had they received it."

Of-course, you don't want to be roused from your comfortable self-delusion! here's what Jesus Himself says on the matter in the parable of the wicked tenants:
“A man planted a vineyard.  He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the  winepress and built a watchtower.  Then he rented the vineyard to some  farmers and went away on a journey.  At harvest time he sent a servant  to the tenants to collect from them some to the fruit of the vineyard.   But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty handed.  Then he  sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and  treated him shamefully.  He sent still another, and that one they  killed.  He sent many others; some they beat, others they killed.  He  had one left to send, a son, whom he loved.  He sent him last of all,  saying, ‘They will respect my son.’  But the tenants said to one  another, ‘This is the heir.  Come, let’s kill him and the inheritance  will be ours.’  So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of  the vineyard.  What then will the owner of the vineyard do?  He will  come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others” (Mark  12:1-9)

Do you think he was just referring to the Jews? Do you think He was saying that His MURDER would bring blessings to mankind from His Father? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! It is this kind of NONSENSE propagated by so-called "good Christians" that brings Christianity into disrepute! Who can believe in such a God as would let someone suffer for the sins of others? Where is the justice in that? Where Wisdom or Love? Have a care! Remember what the fate of those who distort God's Word is!

Apologetics and Theology / Intuition
« on: January 17, 2011, 05:13:57 pm »
ubi2002 wrote:
You're NOT a Christian or theist simply because you claim so. Actions speak louder than words! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

This is ironic...

I'm not the one embracing UNREPENTANT blasphemers, am I, dolt? That's you and your idiotic fellow fake "Christians"! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Apologetics and Theology / logical problem of evil
« on: January 17, 2011, 05:11:54 pm »
harvey1 wrote:

The initial state of the world is of course prior to God's creative action. So, how could God have control over something he hasn't yet exercised his creative action?

So, how did this initial state of the world come about in the first place? In fact, how did the world itself come about? Or do you think it is eternal? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Apologetics and Theology / Who is Jesus?
« on: January 17, 2011, 05:08:08 pm »
Composer wrote:
Quote from: mwalimu
. . . . Jesus' MURDER only brought down a CURSE upon mankind! - . . . .  Those who preach that it was arranged by God as a propitiatory sacrifice commit sacrilege! The call God an unjust Judge!

According to -  Saying, Father, if thou be willing,  remove   this   cup  from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (Luke 22:42) KJV story book, it was thus hereto the will of story book god that story book jesus was sacrificed and story book jesus' pleas were ignored! (So much for the power of prayer LOL! (e.g. John 14:14))

You commit sacrilege by refuting your own alleged holy story book text!

Don't be stupid! Jesus' aim was not to allow Himself to be crucified! He came to bring the Word of Truth to mankind! In that ALONE lay and still lies salvation! NOTHING ELSE! In that prayer, He sought a way to awaken mankind and redirect them away from the tragic path they were treading and refused steadfastly to do ANYTHING that would weaken the impact of His Witnessing regarding God - such as taking flight; which would preserved His physical life but destroyed the Work He was doing!

The lack of understanding of some of you so-called "atheistic intellectuals" is appalling!

Apologetics and Theology / Intuition
« on: January 17, 2011, 05:01:41 pm »
wonderer wrote: mwalimu,

You can consider the following to be my standard response to you:

You've demonstrated quite thoroughly how out of touch with reality you are, by strawmanning every position you've encountered to the point of calling many Christians here atheists.  Having shown all the regulars here what an oblivious fool you are, it is clear that there is no real point to attempting to help you see things more clearly.  You seem far too committed to your narcissistic delusions of grandeur, for it to be anything other than a waste of time to attempt to engage you in intelligent conversation.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! The Sanhedrin considered themselves to be servants of God - when they crucified His Son! Whereas in truth NO ONE could have behaved in a way more opposed to God and His Will! They were in reality servants of the Antichrist!

You're NOT a Christian or theist simply because you claim so. Actions speak louder than words! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Apologetics and Theology / logical problem of evil
« on: January 17, 2011, 04:57:48 pm »
Adito wrote: Arthur, why can't beings have free will yet always choose not to do evil? Clearly God has free will yet never does evil so there's no reason He couldn't have created us to do the same.

God "doing evil" is a meaningless concept since "good" is that which is in accordance with the Nature of God - and "evil" is that which is opposed to the Nature of God. In order to do evil, God would have to want to hurt Himself or His Work. ONLY an absurd Mind does such a thing. And absurdity has NO POSSIBILITY of existing in Omniscience! And, even if it did, the resultant of that when expressed with Omnipotence would IMMEDIATELY lead to the destruction of EVERYTHING that has arisen from out of it! So that it would ALWAYS remain INCAPABLE of effective manifestation - save in the coarsest and densest environments in Existence! Such as Hell - and sometimes this earth plane - in the Minds of absurd people! Such as atheists!

Apologetics and Theology / logical problem of evil
« on: January 17, 2011, 04:48:56 pm »
Arthur42 wrote: I don't think an omnipotent and omniscient creator is inconsistent with free will and the existence of evil.  Perhaps God values free will over anything else, even warm fuzzies or a life without suffering.

It does make me wonder whether God "suffers" though, when he sees his creation doing evil.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah! Do you really believe a life in a cage free from the dangers of the wilderness is preferable to wild animals? Or do you think they prefer their freedom in the wild to ANYTHING ELSE? What benefit is there in life without FREEDOM? A rock exists - and experiences no suffering - but how does it benefit from that?

Apologetics and Theology / logical problem of evil
« on: January 17, 2011, 04:43:38 pm »
Arthur42 wrote: I'm not sure what extra ingredient God would have to add to make us always choose good.  Maybe perfect knowledge?

Why do you expect God to add this to you when you have Free Will and can obtain it for yourself? Why are you such a mental lazybones? And with such an attitude, even if knowledge were added into you, you'd soon lose it again through carelessness and laziness. Besides, with all this constant deciding and acting on your behalf, do you not realise you would lose ALL of your independence and cease to be a personal being altogether? Just as if you were suffering from an extreme case of quadriplegia - which extends into your mind. It would be like never being able to get your driving instructor out of your car and driving solo, because you're too cowardly to take up the challenge and reap the corresponding rewards!

You're given the most precious gift of Free Will and Self-Consciousness yet all you do is carp - all out laziness and cowardice! Because you fear to take on RESPONSIBILITY! How can such a craven person ever hope to become a vassal of the Most High? An Image of God?

Apologetics and Theology / logical problem of evil
« on: January 17, 2011, 04:32:46 pm »
Adito wrote:

Why does courage require evil? I can think of many examples of courage that make no reference to evil. Consider the student who takes on ever greater challenges without being certain about his eventual success. This takes courage yet it's not necessary that evil be involved. Besides, you're ignoring the supporting argument in favor of no GMPs requiring EMPs. All GMPs are instantiated in our working concept of God but God has no EMPs therefor there cannot be a logically necessary connection between the two.

I didn't understand the rest of your argument about the scoffer. Would you mind restating it in different terms?

Courage DOES NOT require evil. In fact, genuine courage can ONLY EVER be good - and emerges from a strong desire to defend the good!

Apologetics and Theology / logical problem of evil
« on: January 17, 2011, 04:30:31 pm »
Adito wrote:

Why is it necessary to know everything to spot a logical anomaly? If we can't draw conclusions from our most careful observation/reasoning then we can't claim to have knowledge about anything. This would include ideas about God, His properties, what "the good" really is and pretty much everything else we try to talk about. In other words it leads to a pretty drastic bit of skepticism.

Don't be silly! How can you make proper logical judgements without having the FULL picture! That's called PREJUDICE! Even in earthly courts, FULL DISCLOSURE of ALL evidence is a prerequisite for coming to a proper judgement. Are you actually trying to say you didn't know this?

Apologetics and Theology / Intuition
« on: January 17, 2011, 04:25:56 pm »
wonderer wrote:

Computer codes to recognize the very simplest objects consist of how many bits?

Far fewer than the number of synapses in the human brain.  You do know that there is optical character recognition software these days, right?  I imagine some OCR software still comes free with any PC scanner you buy these days.

BOTH the brain and computers have to specially programmed BY AN AUTONOMOUS MIND before they can give good service. They are UTTERLY INCAPABLE of so preparing themselves!

Apologetics and Theology / Intuition
« on: January 17, 2011, 04:21:18 pm »
wonderer wrote:

Natural selection isn't chance, and it certainly isn't the case that I don't want people asking questions.  Ask away.  I don't want people settling for pat answers.

Natural Selection isn't ANYTHING AT ALL - just wishful thinking! It is merely INFERRED AFTER the fact! It is NOT an OBJECTIVE agency acting on organisms and shaping them in a particular way. The organisms' SHAPE THEMSELVES in their particular environment - with a view to adjusting most effectively to it - depending on how THEY BEHAVE and what changes occur therein - and NOTHING to do with an external agency that works on them.

There is NO "RANDOM MUTATION" or "NATURAL SELECTION" - just the free decisions of living things as THEY STRUGGLE - INTELLIGENTLY - sometimes by means of trial and error - to adapt to survive better in their environment and express their innate characteristics, using their intrinsic abilities. That is all!

Apologetics and Theology / Intuition
« on: January 17, 2011, 04:10:50 pm »
wonderer wrote:  

I don't take it for granted.  I've studied why neural networks are relatively good at such things.  And a neural network which is trained to effectively recognize letters embedded in noise (like a verification code) can be simulated on a digital computer.  It is just somewhat inefficient in comparison to running the neural network in hardware (or wetware).  One doesn't need to chalk it up to being a miracle.  One can seek to understand what sort of thing is going on.

So, if the neural network is just RESPONDING ACCORDING TO ITS TRAINING BY AN INTELLIGENT MIND what makes you think its actually doing ANYTHING autonomously? It's behaviour, however impressive, is the expression of ALIEN control - the control of the Mind that trained it - NOTHING to do with innate abilities - such as are to be found in an actual Mind!

Apologetics and Theology / Intuition
« on: January 17, 2011, 04:04:38 pm »
wonderer wrote:

It seems to be mostly a matter of myth that one's mind 'learns trigonometry or calculus'.  Gerd Gigerenzer in "Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious" discusses how it was long believed that an outfielder, in catching a fly ball, was subconsciously solving calculus equation in order to be where the ball would land.  Investigation revealed that skilled outfielders actually run at a pace which keeps the position of the descending ball at a constant angle of elevation, and in doing so arrive at the position where the ball is going to land.  Gigerenzer talks about a coach who messed up his outfielders by insisting that they run quickly to the place where the ball was  going to be, and then wait for it.  It turns out that the seemingly casual pace that a good outfielder takes many times in getting to a ball, is effective use of such an angle of elevation heuristic.

Obviously the fellow is a LUNATIC if he thinks the Mind is incapable of learning anything! Why do you allow people to insult your intelligence with gibberish like this? Why are you so desperate to hear and believe this sort of NONSENSE? Do you really believe you're unable to learn anything because some idiot says so - however many titles he has before his name? What if he told you you're only imagining that you exist - would you also believe that? Sheeeeeeeesh! This is a kind of hypnosis where the subject makes himself as suggestible for the hypnotist as possible, isn't it? Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 ... 33