Free Will

[Alexis Jacobi]

The difference is that IC has added a ''middleman'' into the duality of existence, whereas Fairy has eliminated the ''middleman'' as being an illusory entity made of pure imagination and fantasy like a fairytale character within a book. Which is always of past tense, and never not the pure unknowing SUPER EXTRAORDINARY INTELLIGENT aliveness that is always present in the here and now eternally where no one, the one real true God resides as pure potential.

The past is where God resides in storybook only, and the demand for that knowledge is always available, but only now, not in the past, or the future, which do not exist.

Nicely put if I may say so myself.

[Fairy]

The difference is that IC has added a ''middleman'' into the duality of existence, whereas Fairy has eliminated the ''middleman'' as being an illusory entity made of pure imagination and fantasy like a fairytale character within a book. Which is always of past tense, and never not the pure unknowing SUPER EXTRAORDINARY INTELLIGENT aliveness that is always present in the here and now eternally where no one, the one real true God resides as pure potential.

The past is where God resides in storybook only, and the demand for that knowledge is always available, but only now, not in the past, or the future, which do not exist.

Nicely put if I may say so myself.

Thanks AJ

[attofishpi]

I posted this much earlier, but you didn't respond.

...he formed from the pantheistic matter that is God.

A pantheistic "god" couldn't even exist. "Existence" would be an impossible concept, then.

I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning as to why YOU think a pantheistic God could not exist..?

Especially in light of God revealing Himself as such..

Ephesians 4:6 (NIV): "One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

This verse is part of a section in which the Apostle Paul is urging the believers in Ephesus to live in unity and to appreciate the diverse gifts given to them by the Spirit.

In this particular verse, Paul emphasizes the unity of God and the omnipresence of the Father. Here are a few key points about the verse:

Monotheism: The verse underscores the belief in one God and one Father, which is a central tenet in Christian faith. It reflects the idea of a single, unified divine presence that governs everything.

Omnipresence: The phrase "over all and through all and in all" highlights God's omnipresence, meaning that God is present everywhere and is involved in every aspect of creation.

Unity in Diversity: This verse ties into the broader context of the chapter, where Paul speaks about maintaining unity among believers despite their diverse gifts and roles within the body of Christ.

Overall, Ephesians 4:6 serves to remind Christians of the foundational belief in one sovereign God who is intimately involved in the world and in the lives of believers.

[Immanuel Can]

I posted this much earlier, but you didn't respond.

...he formed from the pantheistic matter that is God.

A pantheistic "god" couldn't even exist. "Existence" would be an impossible concept, then.

I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning as to why YOU think a pantheistic God could not exist..?

You'd have to read my earlier conversation with Fairy, on this same thread, in order to pick that up.

[attofishpi]

I posted this much earlier, but you didn't respond.

A pantheistic "god" couldn't even exist. "Existence" would be an impossible concept, then.

I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning as to why YOU think a pantheistic God could not exist..?

You'd have to read my earlier conversation with Fairy, on this same thread, in order to pick that up.

I recall reading your reponse to Fairy about: Ephesians 4:6 (NIV): "One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."...as not suggesting God as being pantheistic (which I disagree with)

..but I saw nothing of you explaining how: "A pantheistic "god" couldn't even exist. "Existence" would be an impossible concept, then."

That's the bit I'm interested in - if you did explain that, please be a good chap and do a copy paste thang!?



Ephesians 4:6 (NIV): "One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

This verse is part of a section in which the Apostle Paul is urging the believers in Ephesus to live in unity and to appreciate the diverse gifts given to them by the Spirit.

In this particular verse, Paul emphasizes the unity of God and the omnipresence of the Father. Here are a few key points about the verse:

Monotheism: The verse underscores the belief in one God and one Father, which is a central tenet in Christian faith. It reflects the idea of a single, unified divine presence that governs everything.

Omnipresence: The phrase "over all and through all and in all" highlights God's omnipresence, meaning that God is present everywhere and is involved in every aspect of creation.

Unity in Diversity: This verse ties into the broader context of the chapter, where Paul speaks about maintaining unity among believers despite their diverse gifts and roles within the body of Christ.

Overall, Ephesians 4:6 serves to remind Christians of the foundational belief in one sovereign God who is intimately involved in the world and in the lives of believers.

[Immanuel Can]

I posted this much earlier, but you didn't respond.
I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning as to why YOU think a pantheistic God could not exist..?

You'd have to read my earlier conversation with Fairy, on this same thread, in order to pick that up.

I recall reading your reponse to Fairy about: Ephesians 4:6 (NIV): "One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."...as not suggesting God as being pantheistic (which I disagree with)

Well, you have to read the whole chapter. It's true there's only one member of the Godhead that is called "the Father," but the rest of the chapter says the same things about the Holy Spirit and the Son. And it says there's only one of each, though all are God.

..but I saw nothing of you explaining how: "A pantheistic "god" couldn't even exist. "Existence" would be an impossible concept, then."

That's the bit I'm interested in - if you did explain that, please be a good chap and do a copy paste thang!?

No, there's no point in redoing all that. I think I'll just let the comment stand as I made it.

But I can tell you that if everything is one thing, then no particular thing can be said to "exist." For things only "exist" in distinction from other things. This is a problem that the Eastern traditions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism have long recognized. This is why, for them, the physical world also has to be believed to be eternal. However, all they've got against them is all the related scientific and cosmological data we know, the law of entropy, plus mathematics itself. That's not a small problem for religions that want to suppose an eternal universe.

[attofishpi]

You'd have to read my earlier conversation with Fairy, on this same thread, in order to pick that up.

I recall reading your reponse to Fairy about: Ephesians 4:6 (NIV): "One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."...as not suggesting God as being pantheistic (which I disagree with)

Well, you have to read the whole chapter. It's true there's only one member of the Godhead that is called "the Father," but the rest of the chapter says the same things about the Holy Spirit and the Son. And it says there's only one of each, though all are God.

..but I saw nothing of you explaining how: "A pantheistic "god" couldn't even exist. "Existence" would be an impossible concept, then."

That's the bit I'm interested in - if you did explain that, please be a good chap and do a copy paste thang!?

No, there's no point in redoing all that. I think I'll just let the comment stand as I made it.

But I can tell you that if everything is one thing, then no particular thing can be said to "exist." For things only "exist" in distinction from other things. This is a problem that the Eastern traditions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism have long recognized. This is why, for them, the physical world also has to be believed to be eternal. However, all they've got against them is all the related scientific and cosmological data we know, the law of entropy, plus mathematics itself. That's not a small problem for religions that want to suppose an eternal universe.

But the universe is eternal. Where do you think it's going (*and don't say 'scientists' say this or that!) - entropy just has energy distributed to the point of being useless to us and into a disordered state.

[Immanuel Can]

...the universe is eternal.

Not if you believe any science. We know because of the red shift effect, because of entropy (which is quite easy to demonstrate and measure), and because of the mathematical impossibillity of infinite causal regress. That certain ideologies require it not to be so does not help it not be so.

[attofishpi]

...the universe is eternal.

Not if you believe any science. We know because of the red shift effect, because of entropy (which is quite easy to demonstrate and measure), and because of the mathematical impossibillity of infinite causal regress. That certain ideologies require it not to be so does not help it not be so.

I believe in most science, and I understand that there is great debate among scientists on may things you appear to be taking as certain fact. Even the red shift and and that galaxies are not only moving away, but at an ever increasing rate - acceleration - is not the proof you seek that the universe will not exist for the rest of eternity. (and let's not forget this is seen as dark energy\matter evidence)

When it comes to your continual impossible insistence (which we agree upon) regarding infinite regress, I've stated that the universe forming from a non-causal chaotic 'soup' of some substance (rules out infinite regress issue) - once useful energy - as scientist point out in the 1st law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created nor destroyed - ergo energy/universe is eternal.

[Immanuel Can]

...the universe is eternal.

Not if you believe any science. We know because of the red shift effect, because of entropy (which is quite easy to demonstrate and measure), and because of the mathematical impossibillity of infinite causal regress. That certain ideologies require it not to be so does not help it not be so.

I believe in most science, and I understand that there is great debate among scientists on may things you appear to be taking as certain fact.

Actually, no...these aren't debatable at all, really. No credible scientist is going to say that the red shift effect is a conspiracy, that universal expansion is a fake, that entropy is a myth, or that mathematics is a fix. But if you think one is, who would that be? I'd like to examine his case.

[attofishpi]

Not if you believe any science. We know because of the red shift effect, because of entropy (which is quite easy to demonstrate and measure), and because of the mathematical impossibillity of infinite causal regress. That certain ideologies require it not to be so does not help it not be so.

I believe in most science, and I understand that there is great debate among scientists on may things you appear to be taking as certain fact.

Actually, no...these aren't debatable at all, really. No credible scientist is going to say that the red shift effect is a conspiracy, that universal expansion is a fake, that entropy is a myth, or that mathematics is a fix. But if you think one is, who would that be? I'd like to examine his case.

The red bits are the reason you are not worthy of any debate. I never implied in any way that scientists are looking at such things as 'conspiracy' or 'fake' ..and entropy as a 'myth'.


YOU CUT OUT WHAT I HAD STATED REGARDING THESE THINGS ---> JUST TO GASLIGHT ME-- YOU UNETHICAL, NOT WORTHY OF BEING CONSIDERED A CHRISTIAN

[Immanuel Can]

I believe in most science, and I understand that there is great debate among scientists on may things you appear to be taking as certain fact.

Actually, no...these aren't debatable at all, really. No credible scientist is going to say that the red shift effect is a conspiracy, that universal expansion is a fake, that entropy is a myth, or that mathematics is a fix. But if you think one is, who would that be? I'd like to examine his case.

The red bits are the reason you are not worthy of any debate. I never implied in any way that scientists are looking at such things as 'conspiracy' or 'fake' ..and entropy as a 'myth'.

Unless you suppose that they are, then there's no scientific way for you to continue to believe that the universe has always existed. And if it has not, then the existence problem for monotheism applies.

Either way, the personal insults are not relevant. This is a fact: and a fact does not depend on the person speaking it. It is what it is, or it is not.

[attofishpi]

Stick to your buy_bull science isn't your forte.

[Immanuel Can]

...science isn't your forte.

To resort to the ad hominem, instead of speaking about the facts, is simply futile. I'm content not to fashion any response to this.

[attofishpi]

...science isn't your forte.

To resort to the ad hominem, instead of speaking about the facts, is simply futile. I'm content not to fashion any response to this.

..yet you don't admit to being unethical in a philosophical debate with me, by removing what I stated and then stating things totally contrary to the statements that you removed.

YOU ARE NO CHRISTIAN... ..certainly not in the realms of what the sages, those that reside with Christ demand.

PS. Good luck with your wishful thinking of heaven and your judgement.