Rank #2170 on CommentsLevel 319 Comments: Wizard
OfflineSend mail to holycrapimacupcake Block holycrapimacupcake Invite holycrapimacupcake to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||8/06/2010|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#3035|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#1261|
|Content Thumbs:||779 total, 1026 , 247|
|Comment Thumbs:||21177 total, 27621 , 6444|
|Content Level Progress:|| 30% (3/10) |
Level 61 Content: FJ Cultist → Level 62 Content: FJ Cultist
|Comment Level Progress:|| 32.9% (329/1000) |
Level 319 Comments: Wizard → Level 320 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
|Times Content Favorited:||39 times|
|Total Comments Made:||17213|
latest user's comments
|#55 - Where did I say I hated bikers?||07/15/2016 on Falling down||+1|
|#27 - You're not supposed to ride like that when cars are parked that close. [+] (2 new replies)||07/15/2016 on Falling down||0|
#54 - KillinTime (07/15/2016) [-]
The car is further away from the bike than cars in a lane would be, so yes. Assuming that lane sharing is legal where this is (which is a higher probability than the reverse) then it is the responsibility of the driver of the car to check for bikes before opening his door.
Just because you hate bikers because they tend to drive recklessly does not make them in the wrong 100% of the time.
|#25 - I hope they keep that system, I love that I actually need to t…||07/15/2016 on I'm the cook||0|
|#52 - i just wanna hug it and love it||07/15/2016 on mimikkyu New Pokemon||+1|
|#131 - WHY AM I SAD OVER A CARTOON DEMON GHOST GIRL?!||07/15/2016 on New Erma comic.||+1|
|#103 - Now I'm just wondering why so many people even know what it is…||07/15/2016 on Simulation of two colliding...||0|
|#1 - Now I wait for porn.||07/15/2016 on Cum dumpsters||+4|
|#99 - I keep finding people who have seen this, hell some athiests h… [+] (2 new replies)||07/15/2016 on Simulation of two colliding...||0|
|#98 - You son of bitch||07/15/2016 on Simulation of two colliding...||+5|
|#173 - Again, he gives us a choice, follow his ways and his rules, li… [+] (12 new replies)||07/15/2016 on Human beings in a mob||0|
#179 - jokeface (07/15/2016) [-]
Except He didn't program the robot that way. That wouldn't be giving it free will.
I'll try one last metaphor and then I'm done because I'm not the young hotshot debater I was once known as back on ol' /religion/.
You have a son. You tell him not to have sex with his girlfriend because she might get pregnant and he won't be able to support a child. Then later on you overhear him on the phone talking about all the kinds of boots he's gonna knock, IN PLAIN DEFIANCE OF YOUR EARLIER DISAPPROVAL. You know what's gonna happen, but you choose not to stop it because you gave him a choice, and thus he must face the consequences.
#188 - professorjaded (07/15/2016) [-]
I'm going to assume you're talking about a god with rules and punishments in this case. It seems we're going to be ignoring Pascal's wager at the moment for simplicity.
"Except He didn't program the robot that way. That wouldn't be giving it free will." -J's claim
What makes you think he didn't program the robot that way? By creation accounts you'd be wrong. I still stand by my argument suggesting free will is an illusion of choice. -My response.
If we're applying a omnipotent god to your scenario then your example doesn't work anymore because it's assuming there are rules above god's omnipotence which is self contradicting because it means god in this case is actually not all powerful.
Assuming the father is an all powerful god then he appears to line up the dominoes to allow a bad scenario to happen, then doesn't prevent it or do anything to help fix it either despite being fully capable. I'd call that bad parenting or a dysfunctional relationship.
If the father was all powerful then surely he would know the proper way to defuse the situation thus preventing a bad outcome even without using force. The father could telepathically send his wisdom to his son or telepathically figure out the precise reason why the son is being defiant in the first place.
One nitpick I have with your example is that it doesn't state why the son is being defiant. Is he being defiant precisely to spite his father or the father's opinion doesn't matter and he's feeling horny?
#190 - jokeface (07/15/2016) [-]
>By creation accounts you'd be wrong
I don't know what you mean by this. In the Creation story God designed mankind with free will, and mankind chose to use his free will to break the ONLY rule God commanded: Don't eat the damn fruit.
>it's assuming there are rules above god's omnipotence
What rules would those be? Do you think I'm suggesting God can't intervene? Because He absolutely can. He simply chooses not to, so as not to force our hand. Honestly I'm running out of ways to say "free will" without sounding like a broken record.
>I'd call that bad parenting or a dysfunctional relationship.
Well that's your prerogative. But I'd disagree. I think it's pretty fair.
>The father could telepathically send his wisdom to his son or telepathically figure out the precise reason why the son is being defiant in the first place.
Why would this be necessary? He was extremely straightforward in His initial commandment. There should be no need for further explanation. Plus the commandment to believe in Him for salvation is repeated several times in the Bible so it should stick pretty well.
>One nitpick I have with your example is that it doesn't state why the son is being defiant. Is he being defiant precisely to spite his father or the father's opinion doesn't matter and he's feeling horny?
For this example I'm gonna go with the second option, because it seems the reason most people deny God's existence is simply because they see no reason to believe in Him. Not because they want to spite Him (How could you spite someone whom you don't believe exists?)
#193 - professorjaded (07/15/2016) [-]
"In the Creation story God designed mankind with free will, and mankind chose to use his free will to break the ONLY rule God commanded: Don't eat the damn fruit. " - J
I'm going to ignore what is wrong or irrational with blaming all of humanity including people who don't exist yet on the actions of 2 people for simplicity.
By creation accounts, God creates Adam and Eve, therefore it is akin to my example of programming a robot to do X, since God is omniscient and omnipotent, so God already knows they will eat the fruit and designed them in a way to eat the fruit. -Riposte
"What rules would those be?" -J
As I'm going to deconstruct your example with the father I will show you. This time applying an all powerful god in place of the father.
The main important factors in your example come down to the nature of the world and consequences.
Your 1st example is inadequate in terms of an omnipotent god because the father has no control over the nature of the world, thus only disapproves of the son's actions precisely because it will lead to bad consequences.
If there were no consequences to banging his girlfriend then his father has no reason to disapprove of the son's actions in this case and it would be illogical to do so.
This time replacing the father with a god, then this god would have total control over the world and it's consequences, since gods are omnipotent. The consequences of the son's actions are perpetuated by the factors which lead to them which includes the all powerful father, since the father controls the world and it's consequences.
The son in this case has no free will and any action the son takes is irrelevant because god creates the bad outcome, the nature of the world and controls the factors that cause the son to take any course of action.
Assuming either the world or god came before the other, then if god comes first then god creates the nature of the world and it's consequences. And if the world comes first then god's omnipotence is contradicted because it implies there are rules greater than god that lead to god's inception in the first place.
"Why would this be necessary? He was extremely straightforward in His initial commandment."
1 People can make shit up all the time which is why Scientologists and nut jobs of all kind exist. If I was an omniscient or all powerful god, surely I can think of plenty of better ways to let my important message stand the test of time and translation errors.
Why wouldn't a god telepathically send proof considering it's omnipotent? If it's message was that important then clearly there are better methods than scribes in the desert.
Creating an indestructible book or rock that telepathically stores info would be better proof and method than playing games of telephone or Chinese Whispers. I don't remember laziness as a quality befitting a god.
Don't you think it's weird how different geographical areas have their own gods? Almost like people make them up on the spot, literally.
2 If we're talking about Abraham religion then that means you think Judaism is correct because that's technically in the bible including all these ridiculous rules. Not even going to mention the absurd amount of cherry picking people do today.
In your opinion, the bible is the correct religion. Regardless of the testimonial inconsistencies and the fact that any "miracles" were done in questionable circumstances. The Noah's ark story is pretty ridiculous in of itself, unless the problems are explained via "magic" and "mysterious ways".
I could go on and on about flat earthers and people who think witches and wizards exist, but I'm not being paid here.
"Why would this be necessary?" -J
You seem to be implying a limit to the behavior of all powerful beings which contradicts the all powerful nature of a god. Since I provided good reason then the onus is yours. Or call BS.
#200 - jokeface (07/15/2016) [-]
>God already knows they will eat the fruit and designed them in a way to eat the fruit.
He designed them in a way to CHOOSE whether or not to eat the fruit. There was nothing about the way they were created that forced their hand.
>The main important factors in your example come down to the nature of the world and consequences.
This is a good header for my response to the majority of your argument. Because as you say, God in this scenario would have to be bound by the rules of world He created, thus rendering Him not all-powerful. But what you're forgetting (or perhaps intentionally omitting) is that when He designed the world, He made it to be perfect. There were no consequences for sin because sin didn't exist yet. There was only one small factor that could potentially lead to any negative outcome, and that was the decision by Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. Which, again, they had every opportunity to NOT DO. Idk why you're so bent on insisting that they had no choice. The account of events goes thusly: Eve was convinced by the serpent to eat the fruit, even though she knew, and even verbalized, that God had forbidden it. Which shows she was of sound enough mind to know that she shouldn't do it, yet made a conscious decision to disobey. And then the same thing happened when she gave the fruit to Adam.
Now, the meat and potatoes: When they disobeyed God, they invoked a curse upon the world. And this is where all bad things come from. All turmoil, hatred, disasters, and everything else in Pandora's Box (using that as a metaphor, not a literal allusion) are the result of this curse. So in essence, the nature of the world changed. This is important to note, because it means that God allowed the free will of mankind to cause chaos upon His perfect creation. He never lost control. He simply allowed events to play out on their own. Kind of like putting your iPod on shuffle.
>I don't remember laziness as a quality befitting a god.
Laziness has nothing to do with it. Again, it's about God giving man control to influence his own destiny. Those who choose to follow Him will maintain the Word, and those who choose to corrupt it will corrupt it.
>If we're talking about Abraham religion then that means you think Judaism is correct because that's technically in the bible including all these ridiculous rules. Not even going to mention the absurd amount of cherry picking people do today.
Yes, I absolutely believe Judaism is correct. It's relevance is inherent to the development of Christianity. As for the cherry picking, I've had that argument with people before, and we could get into it if you want, but I'd rather not, because like I said, I'm honestly exhausted. I used to spend so many hours every day on this site just constantly rehashing the same debates over and over. I don't even like calling them debates, because there's never a winner. They're just discussions. Exchanges of ideas. And that being the case, they could go on forever.
#205 - professorjaded (07/16/2016) [-]
To humor you J, I'm going to offer a repeatable experiment to test the existence of any all powerful & benevolent being, which works under 3 assumptions. If your God is unable to pass the experiment then it proves at least one of the assumptions wrong. It should be said that you don't actually need to argue about the experiment, but I suppose you're free to do so.
1 The being actually exists.
2 It's all powerful.
3 It's benevolent
Ok, let's start. You're going to need at least 2+ non-disabled people including yourself to do the experiment. Pencils, paper, something to generate random information like a deck of cards or dice, and 2 different rooms sealed in a way to make physical communication impossible.
Step 1. Give both people 1 paper and 1 pencil, but only give one person the dice or deck of cards. Then put them into the separated rooms.
S 2. One person should roll the dice a specific number of time like 10-20 times and write down the order of the numbers that appear or alternatively shuffle a deck then write down the order of the cards that appear either through the whole deck or halfway.
S 3. This part should be the easiest if the 3 assumptions hold true. Simply ask who ever is your all powerful deity to send the order of the cards telepathically to the other person in the other room.
Physical communication is impossible, so if the other person obtains accurate information then it means you just violated the laws of physics which could only be the act of a omnipotent deity or conventional telepathy coincidentally happens to be possible. Although this is irrelevant if you require to use a deity every time to use telepathy.
S 4. If the assumptions hold true then the other person should flawlessly reproduce the random set of information the other person produced. Congratulations you're deific beliefs are actually right!
Concluding the experiment, I predict X's claims the experiment doesn't work because people are going to corrupt the information or his god doesn't feel like proving itself.
I retort X's argument is irrelevant because depending on how many times and how long the experiment is replicated, the burden of evidence and rationale shall always be on X to explain why the experiment does not provide positive evidence of X's claims.
It's possible for the experiment to be improper only in the case if the rooms allow physical communication somehow. In this case, it's less of a fault in the design of the experiment and more so how it is set up.
#204 - professorjaded (07/16/2016) [-]
"it's about God giving man control to influence his own destiny. Those who choose to follow Him will maintain the Word, and those who choose to corrupt it will corrupt it. "
In order to reply to your retort, I'm going to have to bring up Pascal's Wager again. Let's remember how there could be infinite variations to the nature of deities along with the wide ranges of variations of gods from the selections people on Earth have already thought of.
"it's weird how different geographical areas have their own gods? Almost like people make them up on the spot, literally. " - Earlier response by me
"People can make shit up all the time which is why Scientologists and nut jobs of all kind exist. If I was an omniscient or all powerful god, surely I can think of plenty of better ways to let my important message stand the test of time and translation errors. "
-Another Earlier response by me.
According to you, your god happens to be pretty much apathetic about everything including his own messages or influence and simultaneously gives messages while being apathetic. That seems irrational, if your god is THAT apathetic then there's no reason to offer any messages at all.
Furthermore since all messages are apparently corrupted, since every geographical area didn't originate in the same variation of gods then that means you're equally likely to go to any variation of eternal torture.
It should also be noted, apathy and laziness are traits that commonly go hand in hand. The god J is talking about would be both considering it is not benevolent nor does it value doing competent jobs at anything really, especially objective proof or a way to preserve a message against factors of error.
Hypothetically, if one were to choose with their free will to have objective demonstrable proof from J's god then I'm sure he would suggest that his deity feels like not offering objective proof. Such an action would be more accurately described under the category of apathy than benevolence.
Although, simply suggesting his god does not feel like offering proof can be reasonable in a sense. It is unreasonable in the case when the amount of demonstrable scientific evidence amounts to none without a good explanation.
You'd think actual all powerful omnipotent gods could offer some scientific proof than irrationally none, claiming any god could "easily" offer proof, but doesn't for some reason would actually mean it actually hardly offers proof.
In a nutshell, my arguments have been geared towards responding to J's beliefs. More so concerning J's inaccurate and flawed notion of "free will" and the legitimacy of magical explanations in his beliefs. Other arguments are directed at the nature of J's god and imo several contradictions to his claims regarding it's behavior.
I don't think an argument based on evidence will go on forever unlike J, but I am going to be conceding my argument because I think I've made my points clear.
#203 - professorjaded (07/16/2016) [-]
"He never lost control. He simply allowed events to play out on their own" -J's claim
This is arguably contradictory, saying your god is no longer all powerful, but he never lost control is logically inconsistent imo. - My response
"Idk why you're so bent on insisting that they had no choice."-J
I like arguing and I think the one who posits free will as realistic or a trait as easily attributed posited by magic shouldn't complain when others propose alternative counter arguments. Especially in a day an age where someone can easily program a robot or computer to do or preform action X. The nervous system along with genetics makes it appear as a stunningly obvious realistic example analogous to computers and programming or coding, to an extent eerily similar.
#202 - professorjaded (07/16/2016) [-]
I'm going to start off by deconstructing the words "free will".
"Will" would be equivalent to "consciousness" or "decision".
"Free" is an attribute and in this case an adjective equivalent to "unaffected". After all it would be inaccurate to consider a pack of gum to be free if it has a price on it, thus a free pack of gum would be free of price. If the consciousness is not free of influence then it wouldn't be called "Free will", it would be called an influenced will.
Would you suggest a person to be truly free if their decisions are affected by factors other than their own? I certainly wouldn't, thus I assert nobody should consider a "will" to be made "free" if it is under the influence of X.
"There was nothing about the way they were created that forced their hand." - J
Certainly you jest, if you want to assert there was absolutely "nothing" to cause them to eat said fruits.
Ignoring how ridiculous it is to create a man from mud and woman from his rib using magic. I'm going to attack your claim that there was allegedly "nothing" about them that forced their hand.
Frankly I remember human beings having a little something called DNA and genetics. Had there been truly "nothing" about them that would have forced their hand then how is it that they would had the desire to eat the fruit in the first place?
Logically if there was nothing to their inherent programming which would have led to them wanting to eat the fruit then they wouldn't have eaten it, since there would be no reason to be tempted.
My 2nd line of argument is going to be on the precarious positioning of the evil fruits and how odd it is that Lucifer the talking snake coincidentally happened to be there.
I suppose it was all part of the God's alleged "perfect" plan which happens not to be so "perfect", since humanity happens to get cursed and the totally "perfect" paradise happens to have an perfectly flawed fruit tree there which seems out of place in a "perfect" world.
As for your other claims, you concede the argument that the god you are talking about is not omnipotent.
Furthermore, I should state "perfection" is a completely subjective attribute, which is the rationale for my sarcasm. I'm going to assert an argument on your claims of an allegedly "perfect world" which may lead J into an argument about semantics, perhaps even dragging the argument off tangent.
Consider this, how is it that a fruit of evil even exists if the world is allegedly perfected? Another thing, how would Lucifer even be evil in the 1st place unless made to be evil if evil allegedly did not exist with an allegedly "perfect" world? Seems contradictory imo.
If Adam and Eve had every opportunity not to eat the fruit then how is it that they ate the fruit? It appears like you're suggesting they ate the fruit for no reason at all.
As for curses, magic, and voodoo and the claims about the nature of world changing and all that. I'm placing that under the category of magical thinking, ignoring how it makes total sense that anyone would have been an actual eye witness to the alleged events described.
#206 - jokeface (07/16/2016) [-]
Bruh, with all due respect, I can't keep this up. I hate to do this because the prideful part of me doesn't want to sound like I'm admitting defeat (which I'm not), but I'm simply getting overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information we're exchanging, and I don't want to continue.
Again, it's not like we were going to agree anyway.