The End of Firefox

I studied some logic, just basic stuffs. I'm not trained in mathematics, but I know there is serious and important difference in mathematical logical propositions and logical propositions.

Can you show me, in lay man terms, how Godels theory can contradict the illogical statement that God is the author of evil?
Please, I want to hear the argumentation. Or you just thought you would post something smart, huh? I'm wainting...

The basis of Godel's theorems is that there is no difference. The basis is that logic can be reduced to math. This is the idea behind Godel numbers which were actually created to avoid infinite regress.

But let's say that your previous statement is correct:
So Truth is distinct and unique. Truth is not contradictory. Ideas are dangerous, worldviews are dangerous, because they have the potential (from our perspective) to be either true, either false. That's why, it is my position, that I have come to a understanding that to romanticise world and its dieversities of view its dangerous in itself.

By your own admission, logic is already mathematical - in this case it is binary.
 
CrazyBeautiful; said:
Did you ever think that God gave us free will as a test to see if we were really paying attention to his main message? No matter what was written, you were given a mind that let's you make the right decision. And what is right? God says love is right.
I agree, but love brings responsability.
 
Last edited:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2336520/mozilla-defends-ceo-over-homophobic-claims

MOZILLA'S controversial CEO appointment, Brendan Eich, continues to draw opponents.

Dating website OK Cupid has asked its users to consider using a browser from a company with less homophobic associations than Firefox, and a petition that asks the firm to remove him from office is very close to its 75,000 target.
The petition, hosted on the Credoaction website, is aimed at Mozilla's board of directors and tells it in no uncertain terms to remove Eich from office unless he announces support for gay marriage, and replace him with someone with different views.
"The people at Mozilla and their massive community of users deserve better than a leader that advocates for inequality and hate," it says.
"CEO Brendan Eich should make an unequivocal statement of support for marriage equality. If he cannot, he should resign. And if he will not, the board should fire him immediately."

I gotta say, I will miss firefox but will switch in 30 days if this butt head stays


29 days,Opera looks good I think I will try it tomorrow


The petition, hosted on the Credoaction website
 
Then you didn't need to rely on what is written and could have formulated a proposition to illustrate it instead. Yet you apparently abandoned the logical angle to post something that was written.

Abandoning logic to depend on what is authoritatively written is dogmatic, unless what is written somehow self illustrates the truth.

You stopped formulating arguments and just posted something that it authoritative and in no way self evident or self explaining. It just claims that 'this is so'.

1 John:

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
 
Ok. I cant help it. [MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] you believe that Gods word is Gods word yes? Gods word should be obeyed without question? Explain to me why people moved away from the old testament then, the original of Gods word.
 
If
"1. God created free will" implies that God created all possibilities for the use of free will, and one of those possibilities happen to be to sin, then yes the conclusion logically follows whether you like it or not.

1. "God created all the possibilities for the use of free will?"
2. One of the possibilities is sin - which secretly implies that God created this possibility too, which implies that God created sin, so you have one false assumption here;
3. God is the author of sin.

Yes, your reasoning is flawless, but unfortunately is not true. God didn't create sin, and neither the possibility of sin.

What God created is free will, and free will implies the possibility of sin, but it not create possibilities for sin. Possibilities are 'created' when these possibilities are actualised, but if they never are actualised, the actually never exist. But you know what also free wils implies? The possibility of good.
 
Ok. I cant help it. [MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] you believe that Gods word is Gods word yes? Gods word should be obeyed without question? Explain to me why people moved away from the old testament then, the original of Gods word.

Jesus disbanded the cruelty of the pharasees, and their man made laws, in order to make way for his teachings which where about acceptance and love. He did not take away self accountability, or Gods self spoken law, the ten commandments, but instead elaborated on the fact that man should not be enacting punishment as they have been in the past, but instead look to God to judge and seek forgiveness.

Not all the laws in the old testament or even the new are from God.
 
1. "God created all the possibilities for the use of free will?"
2. One of the possibilities is sin - which secretly implies that God created this possibility too, which implies that God created sin, so you have one false assumption here;
3. God is the author of sin.

Yes, your reasoning is flawless, but unfortunately is not true. God didn't create sin, and neither the possibility of sin.

What God created is free will, and free will implies the possibility of sin, but it not create possibilities for sin. Possibilities are 'created' when these possibilities are actualised, but if they never are actualised, the actually never exist. But you know what also free wils implies? The possibility of good.

The logic is similar to saying God created nothing because he created matter.

Nothing exists as a consequence of something existing.

Sin is simply the absence of good. The absence of Gods nature in the world and in man.

Is it Gods fault that sin exists? No. Is our sin a consequence of our existence. I suppose it is.

EDIT:

Some say it is our fault for sin and others say it is God's. I say it is simply a consequence of life. Would one blame a tree for falling on him?
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

If I were to make a nuclear bomb with the detonator hooked up to 6 billion independent adaptive AI, none of which were explicitly programmed to detonate the bomb, yet it only takes one emergent behavior to detonate it, and the probability of at least one emergent detonating behavior arising is almost certain, am I not culpable for the bombs detonation because I didn't actually tell the AI that it should detonate?
I don't think its a good analogy.
Firstly, free will is not even closely similar to "adaptive AI". Free will has choice, to do good or to do bad. To chose good, or to chose bad. Its not something robotic, static, whithout life. Plus, free will is not only by itself. Free will is the determining factor of choice, but alongside free will, a person has reason, emotions or feelings, and values.
 
1. "God created all the possibilities for the use of free will?"
2. One of the possibilities is sin - which secretly implies that God created this possibility too, which implies that God created sin, so you have one false assumption here;
3. God is the author of sin.

Yes, your reasoning is flawless, but unfortunately is not true. God didn't create sin, and neither the possibility of sin.

What God created is free will, and free will implies the possibility of sin, but it not create possibilities for sin. Possibilities are 'created' when these possibilities are actualised, but if they never are actualised, the actually never exist. But you know what also free wils implies? The possibility of good.

What does this mean? What makes a possibility 'actualized'?

A possibility must be actualized the moment it becomes possible otherwise the thing which is supposed to be possible cannot happen which makes it not possible.

If you're saying that a possibility becomes only actualized when the possible event actually happens then this is a contradiction because the event must first be possible in order to happen which means there must be an actualized possibility before the event happens.
 
Jesus disbanded the cruelty of the pharasees, and their man made laws, in order to make way for his teachings which where about acceptance and love. He did not take away self accountability, or Gods self spoken law, the ten commandments, but instead elaborated on the fact that man should not be enacting punishment as they have been in the past, but instead look to God to judge and seek forgiveness.

Not all the laws in the old testament or even the new are from God.

Hmmm I have heard what I think this argument is before. Jesus died on the cross, sin was abolished at that time, therefor the Old Testament was no longer valid after that? Is that what you are saying?
 
Ok. I'm so happy you telling me this now.


Yes, Jesus meassage was love, but not only that. He also preached repenting of sins before God, believing in Jeus Christ as the only way we can be free from our sins, humility, self-denying and many other tings, Jesus's message wasn't one sided, like Hollywood makes it.

Finding love in my message? Can you show me where did I proclaimed hate or contemption over gay people?

If I would reverse the love accusation, its like I would say to you: "I'm having a hard time seeing love in your posts. You are so harsh with me. You never show me love and affection in your posts." Does this sound like a good argument to you against love?
Its a good argument for love as childrens understand it.

Telling you what now? If it's that I thought your type of logic is flawed, then I thought that was self-evident in my responses. And if you were referring to me stating that I was not trying to be rude, well, I hardly think disagreeing with someone would be considered rude.

In your words:

"If hate means "to passionately or intensely dislike someone or something.", than yes, I do hate homosexuality. I'm a Christian, and I think homosexuality is sin. We are commanded in Bible to hate sin, but love the siners. So yes, I do hate homosexuality. But I have nothing against gay people. They are responsible for their values, decisions and lifes."

^^^ News Flash: Gay people are homosexuals. Therefore....

And I don't feel that I am being harsh at all. I am trying to point out a different perspective to you. One that involves love and acceptance of others, not hatred towards a persons sexual preferences just because they are different than your own. I AM showing you love and affection in these posts, you just choose to see that I am being harsh. Not so.

I respect that you are a devout Christian, but I think where your argument falls short with me is when you try to base your opinion in religion and prooftexts from the bible. It would be one thing if you said, "I feel this way. Regardless of religion".

When you throw religion into the mix, then the are too many ways to poke holes in that argument.

If the bible said that homosexuality and same sex marriage was acceptable, would you hold a different view?
 
I don't think its logically correct and true to accuse God for sin. And this is just purely form a cognitive approach. From another approach, its not only incorrect, but it shows how sinful and wicked we as humans are for accusing God of our OWN sins.
"I am sinful. But its not my fault. its God's fault, He shoudln't had created me. After all, He knew I would sin. So God is guilty for...MY sins, simply because He created me. But what about good? Is God 'guilty' for that? No no no no! Hold on. For good, I am 'guilty'., not God!"

To be capable of meaning, to understand, to think, to love, our free will must be aware of evil. Otherwise, how could we fully appreciate and understand good? If God would create us whith a will and we could only chose good, like robots, than what meaning good would have? Good wouldn't be good. Good by its very nature implies the possibility of evil.
If God would create us just to chose good, we would be good, but only in a theoretical state. Actually, we would be neutral. We would do good, but not because we understand it, but because we are programmed to do it. Good wouldn't had any meaning to us. because good is meanigful when YOU KNOW there is also evil, when you know the value of good, when you know how awesome and profound good is.
God created us so we can chose, to follow good or evil. This brings responsability, but it also brings MEANING.
 
The logic is similar to saying God created nothing because he created matter.

Nothing exists as a consequence of something existing.

Sin is simply the absence of good. The absence of Gods nature in the world and in man.

Is it Gods fault that sin exists? No. Is our sin a consequence of our existence. I suppose it is.

EDIT:

Some say it is our fault for sin and others say it is God's. I say it is simply a consequence of life. Would one blame a tree for falling on him?

Be careful with the word 'absence' because all conditions other than 'presence' are sufficient to meet this criteria which would make human behavior and will an irrelevant point.

In other words a mere absence could be true everywhere. It would imply for example that rocks could be possibly sinful.
 
Hmmm I have heard what I think this argument is before. Jesus died on the cross, sin was abolished at that time, therefor the Old Testament was no longer valid after that? Is that what you are saying?

No, I am saying "Jewish Law" was never valid. Jesus was just the one to announce it. Gods law trumps.
 
Be careful with the word 'absence' because all conditions other than 'presence' are sufficient to meet this criteria which would make human behavior and will an irrelevant point.

In other words a mere absence could be true everywhere. It would imply for example that rocks could be possibly sinful.

Pherhaps the absence of God in choice then.
 
[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] I have to ask. Is there some class or initiation where people of one religion or another, are set forth into the world and given the task of converting at least one person they come into contact into their religion? Religious people, from my perspective, seem to love to speak of their religion and tell people not of their religion how they are wrong for thinking any other way.

I am actually interested for many many reasons. One of which is a cousin I have who seems to have disowned me because I was honest with him and told him I will never believe in his god. Now that I think of it, a good family friend who was basically like a second mother to me, disowned me as well all because of religion. This saddens me to no end. In my mind I think, I should be more important as a living breathing human to them when compared to that of a purely imaginative friend. Both of them, will always be more important to me regardless of any friend I fabricate in my head.

Understand please that when I say I believe your God is nothing more than an imaginary friend to you this is not a put down. I fully believe this. While you and others like you clearly believe it is something more substantial, I do not. Is it considered offensive by you that I call your God an imaginary friend?
 
shows how sinful and wicked we as humans are for accusing God of our OWN sins

To not accept that evil and sin are divine creations is to invite the repression of evil in yourself. Repression of evil will only make it stronger.

I do think it is unfair that you are being pilloried for your beliefs. There are and have been many forum members who believe as you do and this kind of spiraling arguments has been repeated many times on this site.

Know this, in the west there is a strong movement to disengage sexuality between consulting adults and scripture.

In the Mennonite church today, like literally this week, there is a movement to expel churches that have hired practicing, monogamous homosexual pastors. These pastors have studied your scriptures and do not see the clear cut evil that you believe exists in homosexuality.

If you want to argue scripture, find some folks that are as well versed in it as you and argue it.

Simply calling something a sin because you claim, by your reading of scripture, it is not what your god intended is just a heap of smell bullshit.

BTW

The petition, hosted on the Credoaction website
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
Back
Top