Thread 17988489

>has to intentionally suffer all his life otherwise he will suffer even more in the afterlife
>and also has to make no mistakes otherwise his suffering would be pointless and will suffer again in the afterlife anyway
I don't get it.

The whole system seems designed to create maximum anxiety with minimum clarity

>>17988635
That's another good point. You can't be sure in anything at all.

>>17988489 (OP)
Eternal peace and happiness for the humble and the meek. Their sins will be forgotten.

>>17988667
So predeterminism.

>>17988489 (OP)
>gets created without being asked
we all were asked if we wanted to take the test
>has to intentionally suffer
that's not necessarily the case following God's commandments is not suffering
>has to make no mistakes
you aren't expected to be sinless

>>17989217
>we all were asked if we wanted to take the test
Proof?
>that's not necessarily the case
Proof?
>you aren't expected to be sinless
Yes but a single mistake can turn you away from your faith.

>>17988489 (OP)
Yes, consent-based morality is half-baked and doesn't hold up to existence itself.

>>17989205
Nope. Being humble and meek is a choice you can make. When someone offends you and hurt your pride, choosing to please God instead of your ego by letting it go and turning the other cheek is a choice you can choose to do.

To those who choose to be humble and meek and always do right God will forgive all sins and reward them them with eternal fun.

>>17989503
Nope, this is pure biological determinism. You're free to disprove biology.

>>17989539
How do you think that excuse will play out before the Most High in the day of your judgement? If you couldn't do what God asks God wouldn't be asking you to do it. You're just an evil woman who hates God.

>>17989272
I doubt you take scripture as evidence and that's the clearest indication
>a single mistake can turn you away from your faith
That is true but the probability of you making that mistake is higher if your entire life you have lived upon sin. The reverse is also true btw, you can be saved even if you constantly sin so there is hope eve for the worst of us to repent

>>17989547
>How do you think that excuse will play out
I don't know man, it's up on you to prove any of that, you know?
>>17989556
>if your entire life you have lived upon sin
That's predetermined so it doesn't matter.

>>17989559
>That's predetermined so it doesn't matter.
Compatibilism solves this problem

>>17989565
Yet you can't even prove it.

>>17989568
prove what? that it exists or that it is a solution to a reality that has both free will and deteminism

>>17989574
Prove anything at all.

>>17989576
You're saying proof of anything is not possible?

>>17989579
Especially of your claims. But it's understanding, you can't stop being dishonest.

>>17989583
>Especially
It depends on your epistemology on what proof can be given. But anyway that's not a denial so I am going to assume you believe you simply can't prove things. Is that correct?

>>17989588
I asked you to prove your claims. Prove that compatibilism is true, for an example.

>>17989583
The creator of sex and happiness has promised a fun paradise for those who they him. You would have to be a fool not to take up on the offer.

>>17989591
Well I asked you earlier what you mean by that here >>17989574
One depends on evidence we observe and the other is just a logical solution

>>17989593
Proof?
>>17989599
So you can't prove anything at all. Makes sense.

>>17989601
Where did you get that from? I specifically said it depends on your epistemology and what exactly you want proven. Your request and background are vague

>>17989606
So you will not prove anything, great!

>>17989609
If I knew what you wanted and where you are now maybe I can make an attempt. How is this so difficult for you? If someone believes they are a brain in a jar somewhere then no amount of observable evidence would work. It could all be a chemically induced delusion after all

>>17989611
This is hilarious.

>>17989617
proof?

>>17989618
My reaction to it.

>>17989624
Where is the evidence of your reaction and that it indicates amusement?

>>17989625
In the same place where you prove compatibilism solves this problem as in >>17989565

>>17989628
I didn't attempt to demonstrate that the same way you didn't attempt to demonstrate >>17989559 How do you know anything is predetermined? How do you know that if it was then it wouldn't matter?

>>17989633
>I didn't attempt to demonstrate that
Then why did you made the claim? Is it because you can't stop being dishonest?

>>17989635
Ok then by that logic you were being dishonest by making those two claims that are yet to be demonstrated. I asked you multiple times for clarification to attempt an explanation while you have not.

>>17989641
You were very certain that it solves the problem yet when asked you can't prove it. You're only making your side look worse.

>>17989643
Yes and I am still very certain that it can solve all potential problems that are often raised in these discussions. You however cannot even engage which is why you will never get beyond this unless you change that. But what can I expect out of someone that believes proof of anything is not possible

>>17989647
>I am still very certain that it can solve all potential problems that are often raised in these discussions
And that's why you can't prove it?

>>17989649
You haven't given what exactly you want proven. And at this point it becomes irrelevant. Prove I cannot prove anything at all first.

>>17989654
>You haven't given what exactly you want proven
>>17989565

>>17989658
I can also quote my reply where you refused to clarify >>17989576
>just prove anything bro
Ok, by following the reply chain we can see how you are unable to track. Ask your handlers to increase your context window

>>17989664
>just prove anything bro
Yes, just prove anything you claimed. Why not do it?

>>17989665
I just did in the post you replied to. dishonesty confirmed

>>17989670
>I can also quote my reply where you refused to clarify >>17989576
>just prove anything bro
>Ok, by following the reply chain we can see how you are unable to track. Ask your handlers to increase your context window
Where's the proof? I thought it was a sin to lie.

>>17989675
>by following the reply chain we can see how you are unable to track
Notice how there is a claim and the evidence of that claim there? Just a few words you couldn't have missed it

>>17989683
So you can't prove anything you claimed at all, hilarious!

>>17989688
I literally did right where I quoted. Let's make it simple for you
>by following the reply chain
evidence
>we can see how you are unable to track
claim

Problem is that everyone thought that humans wouldn't reploduce.
So our brains need some excuse to justify something we can rationally see as wrong.

>>17989692
So you will not prove how compatibilism solves this problem.

>>17989601
>Proof?
I can't but I pray that God gives you proof.

>>17989695
You don't know that. Maybe you will actually stop being vague this time. Will it be out of your own free will?

>>17989698
Where's the free will located?

>>17989699
why do you assume it has a location? does determinism have a location and if so where? provide evidence

>>17989703
>why do you assume it has a location?
So how do you know it exists?
>does determinism have a location and if so where
Yes, in the laws of biology and physics.

>>17989705
that's not what I asked, and why are you assuming realism for it?
>in the laws of biology and physics
that's not a location

>>17989713
>why are you assuming realism for it?
Because you have not proven anything.
>that's not a location
Yes it is, these are repeatable phenomenons.

>>17989716
How is that a justification for assuming realism?
>repeatable phenomenons
Those are not laws and they are not locations, try again. When someone asks you where do you live do you say I live at the law of non-contradiction?

>>17989761
>How is that a justification for assuming realism?
Because it's what we can sense and repeat.
>Those are not laws and they are not locations, try again
They literally are, they can be repeated.
>you say
This is how they are expressed.

>>17989773
How can you sense and repeat realism? Did you sense and repeat the number 9+i3?
>Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.[1] The term law has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, biology). Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.[2]
Notice how it doesn't say these laws are locations and how they aren't the repeated natural phenomena itself but just a description at best?

>>17989783
>Did you sense and repeat the number 9+i3?
You can use and apply it.
>aren't the repeated
>based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena
That's some next level dishonesty. Why won't you simply answer the question and be done with it? You do realize that you're only making people dislike you even more?

>>17989791
abstract concepts being useful does not imply realism
>based on
guess you forgot to remove that part of the quote. Where does it say they are those things? also I do not care for emotional arguments or the made up people in your head

>>17989799
>not imply realism
>factual accuracy and rejects impractical
>Where does it say they are those things
>Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena

>>17989804
>factual accuracy and rejects impractical
what the fuck are you saying? do you even know what realism is? a nominalist or conceptualist does not differ on any of those things
>are statements, based on
Thank you for finally being honest and showing how your laws that do not have a location are mere statements in actuality. Though ones that reflect observer reality to the best of our current knowledge

>>17989814
>you don't know anything but won't explain why
>Thank you for finally
And I thank you for solidifying my dislike of people like you. And these are the people of love and honesty by the way.

You HAVE TO be created without being asked, because it's impossible to ask without being created. There is literally no alternative to creation, but Christians don't like this principle because it effectively subverts Gods free will

>>17989823
>you don't know anything
Never claimed this, in fact you are the one that implied that earlier. Also I explained how you failed to imply realism because those two other positions out of many literally satisfy the same things you have brought up
>dislike
Not an argument! I don't particularly like you either
>the people of love and honesty
I am not obliged to love you but I am forbidden from lying. You have no problems with not doing both as we have seen so why would I trust you?

>>17989833
You would have had way more success if you acted like a human but obviously that's too difficult for you. Thankfully people can notice that. Imagine doing the very opposite of what you're trying to achieve.

>>17989839
It seems to me like you are just salty I can match and outdo your own rhetoric. If you wanted to talk like a human being you wouldn't have been spamming the thread with proof?? You are delusional if you believe anyone is impressed by basic bitch fedoratard arguments that belong in 2009 facebook. It wasn't so hard to just ask me what I believe and then you decide if it resonates with reality or not

>>17989862
>I can match and outdo your own rhetoric
You can't even comprehend what's written to you. You just love wasting time >>17989565 and are not any different than the people you're supposedly against.

>>17989868
The reason I understand what you are typing more than you is precisely why you are so upset. If I just let go your inaccuracies and deception you wouldn't be so buttmad. eye for an eye bro

>>17989876
Yes, that's why you can't even attempt to prove the claim you made.

>>17989881
I would have done it by now if you stopped being vague. All I wanted was some clarification but nope you would rather have have a shitfest where you baww all over the thread about my behavior and other ad hominems

>>17989890
I did clarify more than you have ever done. I don't think there has been someone more pathetic than you. Maybe it's a satire.

>>17989893
You didn't give any clarification. Immediately when I asked for it you started with the accusations instead. And then when you finally cooperated a bit you revealed the mess of a justification you gave for your religious beliefs. Maybe that's why you were so afraid of conversation

>>17989910
>explain what I believe in
>You didn't give any clarification
So you're delusional about your belief but can't even comprehend a simple argument, makes sense.

its not actually Peter who meets us at the pearly gates but that masochistic Seeb who made Underrail

wait is this /v/ or /his/