30 Oct 14
Originally posted by Great King RatBut chess is a gentleman's game. 🙂
Erm... you [b]are aware that you yourself are currently playing 22 online chess games, right?
😉[/b]
I have never actually played WOW myself, but I probably would if I had the opportunity. I did like the text based DnD in the 80s.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 117006
30 Oct 14
Originally posted by Great King Ratha-ha; but online chess is hardly the same as dressing up as a character from Lord of the Rings and hanging out with a bunch of dudes who think the G-spot is a place of neutral gravitation only accessible by rolling a double axed-head in combination with possession of a special powers card.
Erm... you [b]are aware that you yourself are currently playing 22 online chess games, right?
😉[/b]
30 Oct 14
Originally posted by divegeesterFrom the sounds of it, you are a lot more into role playing than the rest of us. I had thought we were discussing a computer game.
ha-ha; but online chess is hardly the same as dressing up as a character from Lord of the Rings and hanging out with a bunch of dudes who think the G-spot is a place of neutral gravitation only accessible by rolling a double axed-head in combination with possession of a special powers card.
30 Oct 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziNo, he wasn't. He used to pray too.
he was the source. no middle man.
also he is the son of god, do you think he unsure of the existence of his father (or as some christians say, himself)?
That is what I asked you. Was he unsure, and if not, then why can't clerics be sure too?
30 Oct 14
Originally posted by Suzianne"I've said free will cannot exist after knowledge."
I've said this for years, it is what makes Free Will possible. Free Will enables one to make a choice before "knowing" you are right. I've said free will cannot exist after knowledge. If you know God exists, through divine revelation, then you cannot have faith. This is why God doesn't come down and solve all our problems. He doesn't want robots, he wa ...[text shortened]... kind of faith. It reinforces the knowledge in the same way that knowledge reinforces the faith.
sure it can. I have knowledge that eating lots of sugar is bad for me. I exercise my free will when eating lots of chocolate because it is delicious and i like it.
"If you know God exists, through divine revelation, then you cannot have faith. This is why God doesn't come down and solve all our problems. "
the second sentence is in no way a conclusion of the first.
"He doesn't want robots, he wants men who have decided to follow Him without any proof."
bwahaha, your arguments are funny. exactly having proof makes you less of a robot. i have proof he exists, i have knowledge of what he stands for, i can make an informed decision of following him. you call someone who blindly votes for someone enlightened? or do you call him a robot?
"However, once a man has decided to believe, he is subject to divine revelation without worry, for he has already made his choice."
that's the biggest flaw some theists have. "you can't understand the word of god until you have accepted it fully".
if something has merit, it will be understood and accept it through itself. you can't just accept something and worry about the details later.
it would be like someone claiming to have invented space travel, but you just have to trust him the particulars would work out later
"If you have proof before you have faith, then yes, free will is damaged."
what? i hate to say this for fear of offending you, and i have a high opinion of you as a person (you seem nice) but this is utterly stupid. knowledge doesn't hurt free will it actually makes it less of a coin toss. it simply enables you to exercise free will while knowing the consequences and STILL you may choose the opposite of what knowledge might suggest.
30 Oct 14
Originally posted by twhitehead"No, he wasn't."
No, he wasn't. He used to pray too.
[b]also he is the son of god, do you think he unsure of the existence of his father (or as some christians say, himself)?
That is what I asked you. Was he unsure, and if not, then why can't clerics be sure too?[/b]
there was no paperwork done when he rezzed lazarus. there was no paperwork done when he multiplied the bread and fish.
" He used to pray too."
he was talking to his dad, he missed him. he didn't pray when he performed miracles.
"Was he unsure"
i would say no. he knew who his father was, in fact he got separated from his mother and ended up in the home of his father (the temple).
"why can't clerics be sure too?"
you probably meant "unsure" i will answer on that assumption. i don't think that they can. when you are constantly presented with proof of god's existence (and not "nature is beautiful, therefore god" kind of proof) how much faith can there be. faith implies doubt. faith implies the knowledge that there is no proof, but one chooses to believe anyway.
some lorebooks say that clerics, when preparing spells, actually commune directly with their deity to ask for them. one more proof towards a deity's existence.
when you act as a conduit for your god's will and you change the world around you in palpable and miraculous ways, can there really be doubt?
30 Oct 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've also never played DnD, it is not something that sounds remotely interesting to me. I once played a game called Werewolves of Miller's Hollow (http://bintavivi.deviantart.com/art/Werewolves-of-Miller-s-Hollow-Rules-283794845) which I think is comparable and I only started to enjoy that after a significant amount of alcohol consumption.
From the sounds of it, you are a lot more into role playing than the rest of us. I had thought we were discussing a computer game.
I believe there are also games comparable to DnD that are played entirely on a computer - including collecting cards. Hearthstone (http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/) would be an example.
30 Oct 14
Originally posted by divegeesterWait, you don't dress up as your favorite chess piece every time you make some moves??
ha-ha; but online chess is hardly the same as dressing up as a character from Lord of the Rings and hanging out with a bunch of dudes who think the G-spot is a place of neutral gravitation only accessible by rolling a double axed-head in combination with possession of a special powers card.
Somehow I always end up dressing up as a Queen.
30 Oct 14
Originally posted by Suzianne
I've said this for years, it is what makes Free Will possible. Free Will enables one to make a choice before "knowing" you are right. I've said free will cannot exist after knowledge. If you know God exists, through divine revelation, then you cannot have faith. This is why God doesn't come down and solve all our problems. He doesn't want robots, he wa ...[text shortened]... kind of faith. It reinforces the knowledge in the same way that knowledge reinforces the faith.
I've said this for years, it is what makes Free Will possible. Free Will enables one to make a choice before "knowing" you are right. I've said free will cannot exist after knowledge.
So ignorance is a precondition for freedom?!? It's painful to watch you keep trotting out this ridiculous argument.
Free will does not concern the ability to make ignorant choices, per se. It concerns the ability to act autonomously. It concerns the ability to make considered choices that genuinely reflect the agent's evaluative commitments, beliefs, and desires, etc. These internal states and character traits are what make the agent who he or she is. So all that is needed for freedom is that the choice faithfully issue from these, such that the action is genuinely self-directed and hence autonomous. Whether these internal states of the actor are steeped in knowledge or ignorance is beside the point (though it will presumably affect the quality of the choice, whether it is a wise or unwise one, etc). On your account freedom is not much to value, inasmuch as you have perverted the concept and downgraded it to the ability to make uninformed, evidentially baseless choices.
So, your claim that relevant information and evidence (proof) somehow preclude free will is rubbish. Now, it may still be the case that proof would preclude faith on some level. But, that should only give you pause regarding the epistemic value of faith. It speaks to a cognitive failing of faith, not to a loss of whatever volitional aspect there is to faith.
