Jump to content

Jakob

Guys Forum Access (Ages 16+)
  • Content count

    14,120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jakob

  1. I think it'd be fun if we all had spouses on CTF, to make everyone else jealous in the chat, and just to have fun and goof around D:... Any thoughts? Because I married Taped hearts.. And we don't have any friends who are married, I suggest you all find a spouse soon, so we all have fun. Ha. I'm not joking, and you don't have to like the person, just internet friends is all it should be.
  2. This was from two churches ago. Some of the most hardcore reformed baptists I've ever seen. So theologically driven it honestly comes off as loveless, more often than not. At least in my perspective.
  3. I guess I don't really think about it anymore. Seldom did it occur to me people didn't know these terms. Most of them seem to be elementary to me, but I guess it's all dependent on church culture.
  4. Jakob

    Free will vs Predestination

    I'm of the opinion I shouldn't continue to debate in this thread. I'm getting too into this and it's not worth becoming so frustrated. You're of course welcome to reply, Caleb, but I shouldn't continue.
  5. This baby. 2002 Honda Civic w/ V-TEC His name is Plato.
  6. Jakob

    Free will vs Predestination

    Because the time of knowing is the entire point of something truly being deterministic. That's the point of the word pre-determined. The future cannot change the past in any way, it's simply impossible. And that's not really knowing that's more learning. God made the game world, and all the mechanics that would lead you to these events, thus God knows in advance. It is simply a fact of our physical world that everything is the consequent of a previous action. God created the world in such a way that everything we do can be traced back precisely to that originating point of time and life. Thus determinism/pre-destination. Don't worry about it. It's a truth table with a conditional proposition. It's just stating what I'm stating in logical form. Your first premise is flawed, because your consequent does not logically follow the antecedent. If you're talking about after the fact, you don't know he didn't have another choice. You can't restrict peoples from after the fact, you can only do it before. In your scenario, I could have two choices and I could have done either but I could have made another choice. You dictating to me the events after the fact does not determine the facts before the fact, I'm fairly certain that's an inductive fallacy but I don't remember what it's called. The only way it works is forwards. While your first premise follows proper form, it does not contain two true statements that are logically valid. I might go to the store tomorrow or I might go buy a car God knows I am going to buy a car because of omniscience and a standard cooperation of mechanics in the universe (circumstances) I am going to buy a car This is not the same as If I know you bought a car (after the fact), then you had no choice but to buy a car I know you bought a car You had no choice In actuality, the second argument only works providing the first argument is true. But they're still not the same. The second cannot dictate the first, but the first can dictate the second. Foreknowledge must exist. Of course, I disagree. Two non-falsifiable objects by no means give them equal footing. The difference will come about that compatibilism will try to prove this idea that we somehow make a choice, but that choice can be reconciled back to a determinist understanding of the world. Determinism has a stronger coherency to the rational laws of nature and can explain anything, including compatibilism. It is far more likely there is no true free will but that we are solely determined creatures. Argument from ignorance, the current lack of knowledge does not negate the likelihood that quantum mechanics like all others aspects of the universe has a structured organized system. So far as certainty goes, you are technically correct. The only way we could ever prove to the contrary would be to test an infallible model and infinite amount of times. However, I think your idea would inherently violate natural laws. It would appear as though you're asking for a supernatural aspect to occur, but I reject supernaturalism like that. I just can't find it plausible that physics can change in any circumstance.
  7. Jakob

    Free will vs Predestination

    Because knowing something consequentially is not deterministic (in an action sense) at all. Knowing something in advance of something with 100% certainty is much different than knowing something after-the-fact. If something is known in advance, there is no choice. The problem with analogies is that they tend to break down, but I'll try to give one still. If I am writing a video game script, for Star Fox, let say if I made the game and I made it so that I know if you only follow the basic map, you will fight Andros and the game will end with no special ending. If it is a known fact that y will follow if x, then y is not really a free entity of any sort. If P then (Q then R) P Q T T = T T F = F F T = T F F = T Assume P (T) = Q then R This is because it doesn't matter whether or not P is true or false, so long as one can prove if P then (Q then R) it's not really so much contingent. I don't know if this example makes sense to you or not, but it follows deductive form out of necessity. Regardless of what it is, the consequent is to follow and there is nothing that can be done about it, providing the antecedent is met. If the antecedent is met, then the consequent follows. If God knows your choice in advance then you have no choice but to make that choice God knows your choice (omniscience) You have no choice but to make that choice. Regarding your critique of the argument, it is a simple matter of physical fact that the past does indeed control the future in mechanical terms. Suggesting it "contributes" is really no different than simple control. In both cases they are the previous causalities for what is to transpire. You may argue that the contribution is <100%, which is still contribution, but I would firmly disagree with you on that. It is impossible to prove the present is not controlled by the past to anything less than 100%, which gives the argument (on both sides) an element of non-falsifiability. All this to say, that for any example that can be given in all of life, its actions can be reconciled to previous causality. It is a part of the rational structure of the universe, unless the physical laws we live with are not static but subject to whim and will and bending of the Almighty, but I don't think that's the case. And I'm not quite sure there is a valid example of a whole being anything other than the sum of its parts. The fallacies of division and composition are easy to avoid here, but there are valid examples. All tiles of the floor are green- the floor must be green. If you have an example that can disprove that a whole is not the sum of its parts, I would be fascinated to hear about it.
  8. Jakob

    Free will vs Predestination

    What I think is most disturbing about this thread is how carelessly people tend to reject the very large implications of predestination in a deterministic way. Determinism is a non-falsifiable idea, but it tends to have the greatest strength amongst any of the arguments because a proper understanding of the mechanics of the universe do not seem to allow people to truly make free decisions of their own accord. 1. The past controls the present and future (mechanics) 2. You can't control the past 3. Also, you can't control the way the past controls the present and future4 C. Therefore, you can't control the present and future The purpose of this argument is to begin showing people how most ideas of free will are indeed rather quite silly. You don't have any control over who you are or how you act today, you've been conditioned your whole life. But you may thinks- No! I can do this, or that, or that. I can jump, and run, and frollick. But your freedom and ability to do so is entirely dependent upon the past in such a way that you don't currently have broken legs or something that would prohibit you from such. Or perhaps, more likely, your wanting to jump can be traced back to a desire to disprove the idea I'm proposing to you, so you're really only responding to something I'm saying, but you wouldn't be in the situation if I hadn't enacted as I currently am. But then I must address if you're truly choosing to jump. I would say that you have many options, such as jumping, sitting, standing, lying down, etc but the only one you will "choose" is the one the past has set you up to choose- viz. you don't really make choices. The introduction of God into this equation only makes the situation worse. If you wish to claim that "God knows all." God know you shall today stand up from your computer and do other things, but because God knows this, you cannot do otherwise- you must comply. Unless you wish to become an Open Theist, which I would accept as a way out of this trap. Does God know who will "become a Christian?" If so, you really have no choice. If God knows you will, you must. The absolute knowledge of events gives them no room for change. This would heavily seem to imply predestination is a thing- unless you want to compromise God's absolute knowledge of all and become an open theist, which I suggest you should. Despite all of these aspects of determinism, there is a lot more that can be said on the subject. The fundamental aspect of an all-knowing God was one of the nails in the coffin regarding my Christian faith; along with this seemingly undeniable notion we live in a deterministic world and if we are going to hell, there is nothing that can be done about it.
  9. Jakob

    April 2015 Update

    Using prostitution is a pretty false analogy though. Two same-sexed people wanting to be married is in no way equal to that of prostitution or a lot of the things that come along with prostitution. It's not like homosexuality hurts you or people you love like prostitution does to communities with its low-life tendencies and pimps and prostitutes thing you get going on. If someone wants to appeal to their interpretation of Scripture for why homosexuality is wrong, they should be open to considering an alternative interpretation as to why homosexuality may have been wrong then but not now. There are harmless examples to prove this point that do not require extreme or trite examples, such as why does Paul forbid men having long hair? Clearly we don't associate this now because it was a cultural thing- but homosexuality being forbidden as a cultural thing is clearly off the table. The point for this isn't do defend homosexuality simply because it's homosexuality, but that I think we should at all times be open to considering different perspectives. We hide being the interpretation and opinions of people and experts whom we choose yet negate the opposing opinions and interpretations from people who are just as qualified on the other end of the spectrum. In all fairness, Wesker is probably the most qualified person on this forum to debate anything relating to philosophy or theology- yet no matter what he says, his opinion on the subject of homosexuality is moot because there is an unwillingness to contemplate the idea that maybe one's interpretation of the subject is wrong. This is not directed towards any one person in specific, as it's found everywhere, but I think if someone is willing to support rational, logical, valid reasoning for why something ought to be in such a way, they should be free to speak their opinion as such, particularly when there is a clear slice of subjective interpretation brought into play. If you're willing to neglect Paul's clear command that men cannot have long hair because you understand it to be a potentially cultural thing yet neglect the same for homosexuality (or other cultural taboos all the time), there would appear to be a significant lack of true objective judgement and criticism regarding certain topics. Again, this is not directed toward anyone, but is merely my opinion.
  10. Jakob

    April 2015 Update

    If the position is that we can't discuss or "promote the gay agenda" (for whatever that means, I suppose) except in the debate room, what is the point in attempting to attempt or defend it in the debate room if the opposition is completely opposed to considering the discussion any other way? The way this is really set up is that: 1. Don't promote homosexuality because the Bible says it's bad- unless it's in the debate section 2. User provides sound, cogent reasoning in the debate section for why Scripture would allow homosexuality to be okay, with valid expert opinions, evidence, and research etc 3. The forum at large will not acknowledge or accept #2 regardless, because it's contradicts #1. 4. #2 was a waste of time, see #1. All this to say, if we're completely closed off to homosexuality being biblically acceptable regardless of whatever line of reasoning or evidence given, it is pointless to allow the discussion of it at all because it is in every way inherently moot. I'm not saying this to promote any particular agenda or point at all, I'm just observing the counter-intuitive nature of the parameters we've been given for it.
  11. Jakob

    Gays adopting children

    It's really the careless use of language and lack of respectful political correctness that's bothering me at the moment.
  12. Jakob

    The Elections Thread

    Two words: Ayn Rand.
  13. Jakob

    The Elections Thread

    Ted Cruz is possibly one of the most insane politicians on a planet. He pretty much throws science out of the window whenever he wants, he believes God is calling him to be President, and his father says he is going to bring in the Kingdom of God to the United States. He also is in favor of regulating the internet- that means no net neutrality, which is a huge issue. No. Rand Paul is not very much like his father. I liked his father and would have voted for him, but still, Rand Paul is not a very good candidate. Marco Rubio is another insane clown of sorts who likes to ignore and deny science. Jeb Bush- No. Hillary Clinton has been waiting for this moment for decades and that is a very scary thought for me. I like a fair amount of what she has to say, but for being someone who sure is bent on redeeming and restoring the middle class, her top financial contributors are high, powerful Wall Street accounts. I severely doubt she gives a rip about the middle class or economic inequality. Elizabeth Warren is a siren come from heaven. Jill Stein (Green Party) has my vote, unless it's Hillary/Warren and Hillary is striking near-death. All the rest of them are political monsters or a near perfect definition of inept.
  14. Jakob

    a

    Quite.
  15. Jakob

    Who Is God To You?

    Well said. I, like Spinoza (and his followers), see God in all of the universe. I see God in cells, atoms, quarks, and whatever lies beyond that. God is the sum total of all that exists. If string theory is true, God is in the strings. But I'm also an apophatic in a strange sense, so God is also more and not more and not, not more. And when it comes to living with nature, the idea is more to just not contest it. Of course I have to live in agreement with nature, I can do no other. But I can protest and argue against it vehemently and solve nothing. I must simply see myself as a part of it, and seek to do it, me, and everyone else good. Sorry if I didn't really solve anything for you. I think God is in all that is and isn't. God is the laws of the universe and nature. God is matter. God not matter. God is transcendent of all and transcendent of none all simultaneously. God is the totality of all that is and isn't and never has been and will be. And that's also nature in its own way. I suppose the harder job is trying to find a place where I don't think God is.
  16. Jakob

    Who Is God To You?

    God is nature.
  17. No. You're wrong. Don't you know life is like a giant MMORPG and everyone runs around with their MBTI type above their head like a clan name?! That's how I find my best friends.
  18. FURTHER let me be clear that simply because you are an ENTP that does NOT mean you are extroverted! No more than being an ISTJ makes you introverted! The ENTIRE culmination of the MBTI lies in the ORDER OF YOUR FUNCTIONS. Your brain either dominantly thinks introvertedly or extrovertedly. Your brain either feels introvertedly or extrovertedly and between these two, they come in different hierarchies. Carl Jung, the man whose beliefs and research the MBTI is based upon, analyzed that all people deal with things either introvertedly (inwardly) or extrovertedly (outwardly). The true nature of introversion and extroversion have to do with neural pathways in your brain that either feed adrenaline and positive chemicals into your brain while you communicate, or they don't. Introverts expend energy in social contact, extroverts gain it. This process has absolutely NOTHING to do with how you interpret your thoughts, feelings, judgements, or perceptions.
  19. NO! This thread is WRONG! That website is WRONG! Personality matches in MBTI do not go this way!!! Your BEST POSSIBLE TYPE is someone who shares the OPPOSITE of your dominant function, followed by the type that SHARES your dominant function. INFJ's and INTJ's are most compatible with ENFP's and ENTP's because INxJ's have dominant Ni and ENxP's have dominant Ne. INTJ's and INFJ's are best friends because they both dominantly share Ni, which helps them see the world most clearly. INTJ's and ENTJ's get along terribly because they have the exact same functions in different order. INTJ's see the logic first, then the action, an ENTJ sees action first, then considers the logic of it. This drives the two of them crazy because they're both convinced their right (the INTJ is right of course) and they're constantly crashing heads. LET ME BE AS CLEAR AS I CAN POSSIBLY BE An ISFJ is NOT the INTROVERTED ESFJ! This is a lie! ISFJ's and ESFJ's are NOT equivalent! They are very different! Source: MBTI Wizard (Gandalf Level) If you want to find your most compatible partners, put up the people who have the opposite dominant function as you (Ne vs Ni) and the people who share the same dominant function as you (Ni and Ni). That is how you find your best friends.
  20. Jakob

    Picture Post

    And then I found a doppelganger last night.
  21. Jakob

    Picture Post

    I won a place on the All Missouri Academic Team.
  22. Jakob

    Evolution

    I'm not sure why we are discussing Darwin's beliefs. Neither Darwin's beliefs nor evolutionary theory disprove God or prove God. It's as useful as questioning Darwin's favorite food.
  23. Jakob

    a

    I brew my own beer.
×