PastorAIO:


But a free will choice is arbitrary by definition.

Mindfulness:


Explain please.

PastorAIO:


arbitrary
ˈɑːbɪt(rə)ri/
adjective
adjective: arbitrary
1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"an arbitrary decision"
synonyms: capricious, whimsical, random, chance, erratic, unpredictable, inconsistent, wild, hit-or-miss, haphazard, casual; More
antonyms: rational, reasoned
2.
(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
"a country under arbitrary government"
synonyms: despotic, tyrannical, tyrannous, peremptory, summary, autocratic, dictatorial, authoritarian, draconian, autarchic, anti-democratic; More
antonyms: democratic, accountable
3.
MATHEMATICS
(of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
Origin

late Middle English (in the sense ‘[b]dependent on one's will [/b]or pleasure, discretionary’): from Latin arbitrarius, from arbiter ‘judge, supreme ruler’, perhaps influenced by French arbitraire .

Mindfulness:


I know the meaning of arbitrary. I would like to know how a free willed choice is arbitrary by definition as you said.

joseph1013:
LOL...It explains itself.

Mindfulness:


No, it does not.

I can choose something freely based on reason.

PastorAIO:


I would imagine that a Reasonable choice is compelled by reason. being compelled it cannot be free. Unless you have a new definition for free.

Mindfulness:


It is not so simple.

Sometimes you have to make decisions and you have to choose from a wide range of REASONABLE choices.
In this case, you have different reasonable options and you are free to make the final decision.

PastorAIO:


Haha. I didn't think it would be.



What is it that's reasonable? Is it the Options that you have to choose from that you find are all reasonable?

Or, Is it the decision process that is reasonable?

These are two different things. I can use reason to make a decision, a choice between options. Or, presuming that in a situation it is possible to have conflicting reasonable options, I can arbitrarily choose between a number of reasonable options.

Personally I don't think that having a number of options that are all reasonable is possible. But then I guess that would depend on what you mean by Reason (I feel a unique definition of Reason coming up soon).


Can you give me an example of a situation with a wide range of reasonable choices?

Mindfulness:

A simple example.
You want to eat something that is healthy. You have plenty of options.
Another example.

Mindfulness:



You have two different job opportunities. The one is better paid, the other is closer to your family.

PastorAIO:
Is it the decision making process that is Reasonable (i.e. guided by reason) ? Or is it the Options itself that reasonable (if that even makes sense)?
You didn't answer this query in my post.

That cabbage is healthy is not a reasonable fact. You can't say the option is reasonable. The decision to eat cabbage because it has roughage and you need to ease your bowels could be a reasonable decision, but the cabbage in itself is not reasonable. A fact cannot be reasonable. That is the point I tried to make.
If however, you find yourself farting uncontrollably and you want to curtail that then eating cabbage would not be reasonable at all. The cabbage itself is neutral. It is the decision that is reasonable and the reasonableness of the decision depends on the goal you're trying to achieve.

I'm not attacking you willy-nilly. I myself am a religionist and I came to religion from Atheism. It is the process by which you arrived back at religion that is drawing my interest and I want to investigate.

Again here to make a reasonable decision would depend on what your ultimate objectives are. If your family were experiencing difficulties and you felt that you needed to be closer to home then of course the second option might be more reasonable. If your main issues with your family were financial difficulties then the first option might be more reasonable. Again it is the context that determines which decision is more reasonable.

Now, I actually believe that your decision to believe in God may be reasonable. But in what context? In the context of a desperate psychological need for a Daddy in the sky a belief in God would be Reasonable.

author=joseph1013 post=37044961][color=#550000][b]A LOOK AT THE OMNISCIENCE OF GOD...

Could it be true that God knows everything? If yes, it means that he understands the geography, biology, physics, astronomy and all the laws that govern our universe. If Bill Gates is omniscient about Microsoft, then he understands the most rudimentary things in the Windows operating system.

So let's see if this is true about God as revealed in the Bible. Come let us examine him fairly:


1. The All-Knowing Bible God states in his Holy-Book that the earth is flat.

Psalm 104:5
The Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
Question: Where is the foundation of the earth located. Doesn't the earth move?

Isaiah 11:12
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall
assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the
dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Question: Where are the four corners of a sphere located?

Job 38:13
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the
wicked might be shaken out of it?

Question: How can you take hold of the ends of a sphere?

Matthew 4:8

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high
mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world,
and the glory of them.

Question: How can you see all the kingdom of round earth from a high mountain?

2. The All-Knowing God states in his Holy-Book that the moon has its own light.

Isaiah 13:10
For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall
not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going
forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Fact: This is not true. The moon does not have its own light.

Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars
also.

Fact: The moon is not a light.

3. The Bible God educates us that the stars are in reality little lights in the sky and that they only shine at night.

Mark 13:25
And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in
heaven shall be shaken.

Fact: Stars don't fall. Stars are bigger than the earth.

4. The All-Knowing God of the Bible tells me that the sun goes down at nights and rises in the morning.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place.

Fact: The Sun does not rise and set. It does not return to its place. It is the earth that goes around the Sun.

5. The All Knowing Bible God says that human-beings can think with their hearts.

Matthew 15:18
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth
from the heart; and they defile the man.

Fact: Not true. Nothing other than the pumping of the blood happens in the heart. The brain does the thinking.

Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,
murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness,
blasphemies.

Fact: Again, not true. The brain is to be blamed, not the heart.

I am certain of this conclusion that the all-knowing bible god isn't so all-knowing after all. As a matter of fact we can't do any less than to conclude that the bible's god either does not exist and that men made these things up according to the knowledge of the world they had at that time.

joseph1013:




[/b]



[b]How can you use that excuse? Wasn't slave trade in the constitution in the past before it was repealed? Were black men not to marry whites in the constitution? Were women not supposed to vote in the constitution in the past? All these were ruled out before sufficient arguments were made to the effect that it was not the right thing to do. What you just attempted to do is called playing the victim. If you bring facts to the table and convince the judges, you will be helped accordingly.

How do you think it can be explored more than it was explored? One of the best places, and perhaps the best place, for cross-examination is the Court of Law. You bring your facts to the table and you defend them. That's why the court of law is said to be the last hope of the common man.

The major players of Intelligent design in the World were brought forward to testify. I can bet that those of Creationalism who appeared in that case are more knowledgeable than you about Intelligent design. They have written books that you lots refer to and hold as sacred. They have been interviewed on International TV. They have donw documentaries and have foundations committed to Intelligent design. But upon close scrutiny they fell like pack of cards. Their facts were no longer facts. They resorted to half-truths and outright lies.

Are you aware that the court case was not a one day affair? It went on for months and various experts were interviewed on the subject. They brought evidences and they were eventually found out to be shams.

They could not have done better than they did from their weak position.

And no, evolution is a theory generally accepted in the Scientific world. Any evidence brought forward is not brought to refute it. Any evidence brought is to consolidate on what is already established to be true.[/b]

Mindfulness:


You already know that I am not a defender of the Bible but I am actually surprised by the way you read the Bible.

How does the above Psalm mean that the earth is flat?

Moreover, there is a difference between "it can never be moved" (passive voice) and "the earth moves" (active voice). The Psalm says that NOBODY can move the earth and NOT that it can't move ITSELF.

North, South, East and West maybe?

Who or what is "it"?

First of all, how can the devil take you there? Ever met him?

Where is written that the moon has its own light. The moon shall not cause her light to shine means that it will not.

It lets the sun light through. It dims this light and in this way creates what we call night.

I know that stars don't fall but the reason is not because they are bigger than the earth. And again shall could be replaced by will. It refers to the future.

SHALL is not same as WILL. Refer to an English Language textbook. And don't let Christians catch you changing words in the Bible else this verse will be your undoing

Rev. 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book
...God shall take away his part out of the book
of life.

Come on!
When someone says "You'll always be in my heart", we don't take it literally.

HOWEVER, where I do not agree with you, is when you claim that God does not exist. The all-knowing-Bible-God exists in people's minds. This can be proved. He is also part of your thoughts. He occupies your mind strongly enough for us to have this conversation here about "him", whether he is a person(laity), imagination or wishful thinking

joseph1013:


Here are the verses:

The Earth was founded upon waters
Psalms 24:2
For he laid the earth's foundation on the seas and built it on the ocean depths.

The Earth has pillars
Psalms 75:3
When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.

Vegetation before sunlight

Genesis 1:12
The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees
with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind.

Genesis 1:14
Then God said, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night.
Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years.
And God saw that it was good.

We all know by virtue of scientific breakthroughs that these all are false. But we can forgive medieval men who wrote the Bible for thinking they are true. Right?

joseph1013:


Rev 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth.

Only a flat object has four corners. Think square, rectangle...

Psalm 104:5
The Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

The earth does not have a foundation that will make it move. You have to read my writings and not argue for the sake of it. This verse says that the reason the earth does not move is because it has a foundation. In English language, the symbol ';' means that the next words explains the last words.





Why maybe? Because it fits what we have found out scientifically? Explain it away when it's convenient. Yeah, right!



Again, I say quit arguing for the sake of it. You should have read the context of the verse to know I have no business with 'it' or 'who'. I'm only interested in the fact that the Bible wrongly says you can hold the ends of the earth.

Here is it from verse 12

12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days;
and caused the dayspring to know his place;
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that
the wicked might be shaken out of it?

You cannot hold the ends of the earth. The earth does not have ends that can be held.



Why are you asking me? Ask the Bible. How is the question relevant?



Is it right to ask you to go for an English lesson? 'his pen' means the pen that is his. 'her light' means the light that is hers. And the context of 'her' refers to the moon. Simple enough?



Read it again...it calls the moon a lesser light. THE MOON IS NOT A LIGHT. Aarrgghh. You make unnecessary arguments.



SHALL is not same as WILL. Refer to an English Language textbook. And don't let Christians catch you changing words in the Bible else this verse will be your undoing

Rev. 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book
...God shall take away his part out of the book
of life.





Show me how God told you that's what he meant or I say that's your own interpretation. How do we know which verses to take literally and which ones we should not?


Symbolic meaning, I guess. Same as above.



You keep putting words in my mouth. I did not say that God does not exist. I ask that you prove to me that God exists and why I should believe the definition you give to it. Your subjective feeling of God cannot be taken seriously. There are millions of subjective feelings like yours all over the world which are all at variance.

If you say it can be proven, PROVE it.

rabzy:


This is just a feeble attempt to look for errors where there are none. The first verse was talking about the ground, the firma terra. The preceding verse talked about the earth or land and all its inhabitants, the land and all its inhabitants are all resting upon the seas and oceans. That's a statement of fact. In Genesis the earth or rather the productive land, the earth's crust was raised up from the depths of the oceans and came to lie or rest on the sea.

Yes the Bible was written in medieval times and has to speak in language that people would understand, it does not have to speak in scientific terms. In the Psalms 75:3 it is not talking about what the planet earth rests upon, it used pillars as a figurative sense. Pillar is the support of buildings and God is saying when the earth quakes and people tremble, it is he himself that holds the support. He is the ultimate support for the earth and all its inhabitants. These are idioms and illustrations for people to understand and figures of speech to make a lasting impression on people. Till date scientists still talk about sun rise and sun set but we all know the sun does not rise nor does it set. So if someone says meet at sunset, we know what that means even though the sun actually does not set.

We talk about the four cardinal points of the earth, there are no such points, they are just reference points for directions. We all talk about North, South East and West. Everywhere is north of a place and south of a place. But for easy understanding and to set directions, we choose a place as the 'true north'. Longitudes and lats are imaginary lines but they are part of our everyday speech. The angels standing at the four corners of the earth is the same as this. I didn't learn about the four cardinal points from the Bible, i learnt it from a geography which is a branch of science. And till date it is still being taught.

In fact the Bible mentions what is physically holding the earth in place...(Job 26:7) "He stretches out his heavens over empty space. He hangs the earth on nothing whatsoever[/b]. This was written at a time when alchemists believed fantastic stories about what the earth is resting upon. The verse even said he stretches the heavens, thousands of years later scientists has discovered that the universe is actually spreading, expanding or stretching. Brilliantly 3 scientists calculated the expansion rate and were given nobel prizes. I guess that's some brilliant science from the Bible for you there.

There was no vegetation before sunlight. There was the sun before the Vegetations. What Genesis detailed was the preparation of the earth for human habitation. The sun, moon and stars including the earth has existed as planetary bodies.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 [b]Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.

This means the sun and moon and earth existed, but there evidently were fumes and clouds covering the surface of the earth making it desolate and dark.
When God said on Day One, “Let light come to be,” diffused light evidently penetrated the cloud layers even though the sources of that light could not yet be discerned from the earth’s surface. It seems that this was a gradual process, as is indicated by translator J. W. Watts: “And gradually light came into existence.” (Ge 1:3, A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) God brought about a division between the light and the darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. This indicates that the earth was rotating on its axis as it revolved around the sun, so that its hemispheres, eastern and western, could enjoy periods of light and darkness.—Ge 1:3, 4.

That light would be sufficient for the vegetation that came on the third day. So there was light before vegetation.

In Genesis 1:14, that verse was now talking about the source of light.

And God saith, 'Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.

Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ʼohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·ʼohr′, which refers to a luminary or source of light. (Ge 1:14) So, on the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer. Now, on the fourth “day,” things evidently changed.
It is also noteworthy that at Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb ba·raʼ′, meaning “create,” is not used. Instead, the Hebrew verb ʽa·sah′, meaning “make,” is employed. Since the sun, moon, and stars are included in “the heavens” mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to “make” these celestial bodies occupy a new relationship toward earth’s surface and the expanse above it. When it is said, “God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth,” this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse. Also, the luminaries were to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years,” thus later providing guidance for man in various ways.

rabzy:
The Bible is a book written for men and in a way that people can understand. In fact some terms can be best understood if you know the terms or the idioms of the language in which it was written. The angels holding the ends of the earth has its meaning and it is well understood. Just as when someone says 'your life is in my hands' 'i am the one that made you' 'he is holding the tiger by the tail' 'When America sneezes the world catch cold'. These are physically impossible but idiomatically understandable.

Mindfulness:


I told you, God exists in people's minds. In yours too. Whether he exists beyond that, nobody has been able to prove so far.

Mindfulness:

HOWEVER, where I do not agree with you, is when you claim that God does not exist. The all-knowing-Bible-God exists in people's minds. This can be proved. He is also part of your thoughts. He occupies your mind strongly enough for us to have this conversation here about "him", whether he is a person(laity), imagination or wishful thinking

malvisguy212:
it's a choice,you love God or you Reject Him,concerning the wife of cain;bible does not specifically say it only cain and abel was the son of adam,. Although Cain
does seem to be the firstborn, the text is not clear
that Abel was the second born, but only that he was
the second son. Later, the narrative indicates that
Adam and Eve produced "other sons and
daughters." So, it is possible that Adam and Eve
produced daughters between the births of Cain and
Abel. It is also likely that others sons and daughters
were produced after the birth of Abel. We don't know how old Cain and Abel were when Cain murdered his brother, but they seem to be at least young adults, since they are both engage in a trade. for their
living.

Although the period of time between the birth of
Cain and the death of Abel is not given in the Bible, it would seem that this period was probably over 100 years, since the birth of Adam's next son, Seth is said to have occurred when Adam was 130 years old. Adam and Eve could have produced many daughters during that period of time.
It is possible cain would have marry one of this sister,God caused him may have lead to this.

PastorAIO:
In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other:
“Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”
“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”
The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”
The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”
The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”
The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”
“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”
The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”
The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”
Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”
To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

HerPapaPikin88:


That explains one race...explain the other 4. And if I hear Shem, Hem, Haw, Ham or Bacon... I will be very upset.

PastorAIO:
In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other:
“Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”
“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”
The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”
The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”
The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”
The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”
“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”
The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”
The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”
Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”
To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

joseph1013:


Oga sir, I was merely responding to your comments when you said the all-knowing-Bible-God that exists in people's minds can be proved. You think I made that up? I swear, I didn't. See for yourself:

PastorAIO:
In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other:
“Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”
“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”
The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”
The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”
The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”
The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”
“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”
The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”
The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”
Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”
To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

joseph1013:
^^^ Is this a response to my REVELATION post?

If yes, then it's a good use of metaphor to make a point. Although in driving it, it makes a straw man argument for rational empiricism. The reason it seems appealing is because of the poetic comparison of various elements.

Let's try this:

Two men stood at the edge of a cliff.

Said one to another "I'm gonna jump using the invisible rope." "What rope?" said the other. "There must be a rope here." the Believer affirms. "Nonsense." said the Skeptic.

"We can't see a rope so whaaaaaat? Does that mean a rope does not exist. Can't you see how far the ground is? There must be a rope...". Bla bla bla...

I'm on the road now. I will compose something substantial later. But in the meantime, it doesn't make alot of sense.