The Theism/Atheism Discussion

[Ray Jones]

What was the point of the free will argument anyway?

[JCarter426]

The question is whether omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive. In my experience, this argument never gets anywhere, because the "god is infinite" copout can be used just about everywhere.

 

However, this brings to mind another question: even if there is free will, if god knows what you're going to do, does it matter if you even have free will? Free will might as well be a delusion, because you would never know anyway.

[Ray Jones]

Ah. OK. They are not. Omniscience does not mean to be able to see/predict the future. It just means to know everything that is, and/or to have complete understanding of it. So the two are not mutually exclusive, because when your free will to fart "becomes" present, it is and thus from there on known to the omniscient being. To foresee the future one has to be omnipotent, and err...wait. How would that contradict free will again?

[JCarter426]

It wouldn't, if you're assuming that god is omniscient--which, I should point out again, is an irrational belief based on an unprovable assumption. However, it would make free will absolutely irrelevant. Take, for example, the state lottery (always a perfect metaphor). If god knows which number you'll pick, and he has the power to do anything, he could ensure that the winning number is never yours, in essence making your free will absolutely worthless.

[SpartanPride]

But god created satan. Therefore unless satan is more powerful than god (or heck, equally powerful) then ultimately god is still responsible. This same argument applies to god putting the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden, etc, etc.

 

So God is responsible for everything we do as humans? Since he created us?

[Ray Jones]

It wouldn't, if you're assuming that god is omniscient--which, I should point out again, is an irrational belief based on an unprovable assumption.

Hey, of course it is.

 

However, it would make free will absolutely irrelevant. Take, for example, the state lottery (always a perfect metaphor). If god knows which number you'll pick, and he has the power to do anything, he could ensure that the winning number is never yours, in essence making your free will absolutely worthless.

Omniscience would not let him know which number I *will* pick. He would know with the moment I decided though.

 

Anyway, the point of free will is not to be able to win in the lottery.

 

The point is that you can pick whatever number you want.

 

 

So God is responsible for everything we do as humans? Since he created us?

Causality dictates that. However, it's not like humans are not responsible. ^^

[JCarter426]

Well, anyone can know what number you picked when you pick it. Nothing special about that.

 

But forget omniscience. If god is omnipotent, he isn't restricted by time or causality. So he could know what number you pick before you pick it, whether or not you have free will. Thus, your free will is still irrelevant.

 

I'd much rather believe I have free will with no god, rather than god gave me meaningless free will, thank you very much.

[jonathan7]

This will as a warning be a mamouth post; attempting to address several things including trying to answer all 10 questions of the youtube video to the best of my ability; I'm sacrificing reading "Against all Gods" by A.C. Grayling in the park in the beautiful sunshine, so be nice

 

Firstly my immature amusements asside;

 

There is no thing not bound by logic.

 

Really?

 

 

Case for the prosecution rests

 

The sources that Jae selected to defend her argument certainly did. It seems to me that since Jae quoted them, she intended for us to take their arguments as her own. Isn't that how that works?

 

That is something that ultimely only Jae can answer; however I would venture, that knowing her as I do, I would describe her as honourable and as having integrity (I would also say this of you Achilles); as such twisting of words if occured would be accidental.

 

Except that you can't. Not with any kind of intellectual honesty. How is it that you *know* the things about him (apparently we can distinguish gender with no physical evidence) that you claim to know without any evidence whatsoever? You can't.

 

How do I know things about Jesus?

 

We perhaps venture into Philosophical ground there though; how do we 'know' anything? I mean Descartes did a damn good job of causing us to doubt everthing, but not such a good job of putting things back togeather; same can be said of George Berkeley; and despite some claiming that 'kicking a stone' disproves Immaterialism, I have to disagree. I don't think science can disprove immaterialism, however I do not think such thinking is helpful for every day exsistance; I shall return slightly below to answer what I know....

 

Your language and the language of all theists is laden with "I believe" or "I think" or "God must", etc. You *know* absolutely nothing about him/her/they/it. You *pretend* to know quite a bit, but to *know* something objectively, you must have some sort of evidence.

 

All humans always use opinion though, some more informed some less informed than others; but in the grand scale of things as Socrates remarked; "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing". Personally I couldn't speak about much if I was constrained to proof beyond doubt on any topics; due to the fact that however many books I have read, there are still more to read.

 

So really, none of us *know* the first thing about his attributes. Makes "discussing" them kind of a moot point.

 

In my opinion partly true, I never fully engaged with the debate over his attributes; I do not know if God is omnipotent or not; such a fact has little effect on my everday life; or my faith. I believe there to be a God, that he is very powerful and Jesus is his son.

 

I'll point out that there is some evidence for your existence (Tiggy has tangible proof that you are real). Your analogy does not apply.

 

Firstly I shall quote;

 

I've been dieing to say this, Scully from the X Files was asked by Doggett if she believes in aliens. This is her reply.

 

"You want me to go on record? I will go on record to say this; that I have seen things that I cannot explain. I have observed phenomena that I cannot deny. And that as a scientist and a serious person it is a badge of honor not to dismiss these things because someone thinks they're B.S."

 

Replace aliens with religion and that pretty much sums it up, even for a lot of people who arn't nessecarily religious.

 

I have seen things that I cannot explian; now I am not a usual type of believer; my locus of control is ridiculasly high on the internal side; meaning I was always (and in many respects still am); I control my own destiny type people. If I hear a noise late at night; I do not think it to be a ghost, and much like Richard Dawkins, when I see faces in curtains I go over and examine the curtain. If I hear voices late at night I do not assume them to be the dead speaking to me, but some other kind of phenomenon.

 

The above said I have seen things that defy explanation (such as leg healing earlier, and despite some protestations in this thread, I know what I saw and made no mistake); I myself have been 'healed' of appendicitus and of an emotional wound. I do not often represent these as 'proofs' for God as they are subject to my expierance, and depend on how much validity you wish to put into my testimony.

 

But ignoring that for just a moment, if god does exist on a level completely alien to us, then how is it that we can discuss his attributes in the first place. If they are recognizable enough to be familiar, then surely he cannot be all that advanced right? You can't have it both ways.

 

In answer to the question I dunno; if there is a God, in many respect he will beyond our comprehention (especially if said God is outside of time), if God is recognizable would depend on how intelligent and if we were at all like him. In the Christian conception you do have a relationship with God.

 

You may also believe that you have a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in your back yard. At some point it would become apparent that you are lying to yourself in order to maintain this belief. You may choose to argue for its existence with your friends, but without any evidence for an actual refrigerator-sized diamond in your back yard you're lying to them just as surely as you are lying to yourself. That's intellectual dishonesty.

 

I think that analogy somewhat unfair. (Sorry Jae for the anology I'm about to present, and I'm sure and hope it never happens); presume in 10 years time Jae's children are older, and one decides they are going to commit murder; but they need an alibi so they change all the clocks in the house, so Jae and her husband provide an alibi at the exact moment the murder took place when the police come round. Now while the alibi is untrue; there is no dishonesty on the part of the parents; they are reporting the facts as they have percieived them.

 

Intellectual dishonesty as far as I would understand it would be a deliberate attempt to mislead someone, for my part I am not on any concious level attempting to do so, and I don't think Jae is either.

 

Incorrect about what? The only position that I hold is that there is no evidence for god, therefore it is completely unreasonable to believe that "he" exists. If any evidence ever comes to light, then my position will change from neutral to positive, but in the mean time, there is nothing for me to be incorrect about.

 

Now, if you could present a rational argument for how I have purposely ignored or failed to consider actual evidence, then you would indeed have a very strong case that I was behaving in an intellectually dishonest manner.

 

I wasn't accusing you of being intellectually dishonest; lets phrase differently on a scale of 1 to 7; one being absolute belief in God and seven being absolute atheism, where would you put yourself?

 

My friend, Augustine is making this up. He is using his considerable skill to reconcile reality with fantasy and the product is apologetics. He's guessing. He doesn't know. And some long-dead author's best guess at the nature of his imaginary friend is not persuasive to me and it shouldn't be persuasive to you.

 

I ventured forth a specific quote (of a rather messed up man), which at least if God is true, would seem a logical step to me.

 

PS: I didn't say it before, but I'll take a moment to say it now: welcome back. I hope your studies are going well.

 

Nice to be back my friend, always a pleasure conversing

 

Don't ask about the studies! I trust you are well?

 

Anyways, now onto the 10 youtube questions, which I havent as yet seen anyone tackle....

 

Firstly I would like to note, I don't think the Bible is infallible, and if science and the Bible contradict, I am liable to believe science over the Bible.

 

1. Why won't God heal Amputee's?

 

I'm not sure if this statement is quantifiable; I mean lets assume you randomly meet a man called Fred on the street; and Fred claims he used to have no legs but God healed him, what are you going to say? Assuming if God where to heal him properly, everything would be back as it had been; so unless you knew Fred for a long duration, there would be no way to check the varacity of his claims.

 

I did HEAR the following story. (I am unsure as to its truth, as I don't know those involved, however it makes an interesting anecdote).

 

Here is the brief version; there was a que in a supermarket, with a recent convert to Christianity; he asked if he could pray for a partially blind person behind him in the que. The said partially blind person had lost an eye; the story goes that there and then the blind person grew a new eye having been prayed for. As said I don't know if its true but had heard it from a friend; my jury is out.

 

2. Why are there so many starving people in the world?

 

Is God at fault or are we?

 

Anways; here is one of my facebook notes as an offering; I think that there is enough resources in the world, for everyone to be well fed and educated; unfortunatly the rich steal from the poor and there aren't enough Robin Hoods....

 

Lets make 2008 a year to be remembered; if you do nothing else please take 10 minutes to read this, it is my firm belief that changing the World is actually very simple. This may seem long to some of you but I plead with you to read it. The lyrics from Queen’s song ‘Made in Heaven’ (song found here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKhFJcBztB4 );

 

“This could be heaven for everyone

This world could be fed, this world could be fun

This could be heaven for everyone

This world could be free, this world could be one”

 

YOU can make a very big difference to the world! Take a look at the world around us; over 5 billion people live in poverty, wars plague nearly every continent, tyranny, poverty and death plague mankind, have you ever asked yourself why this is so? Is it because there is a lack of resources? My dear friend Toby said to me that ever year the UK flushes away enough water down its toilets provide all Africans with clean drinking water. What United States citizens spend on dog food in a year would be enough to cancel all third world debt. Consider more lyrics from Queen’s song;

 

“Listen - what people do to other souls

They take their lives - destroy their goals

Their basic pride and dignity

Is stripped and torn and shown no pity

When this should be heaven for everyone”

 

Why is the world such a horrible place? May I suggest that it is a lack of love and not caring that is the real problem? Do you realise just how important your individual actions are in the fight against evil? Phillip Zimbardo said; "Our usual take on evil focuses on the violent, destructive actions of perpetrators, but the failure to act can also be a form of evil, when helping, dissent, disobedience, or whistle-blowing are required. One of the most critical, least acknowledged contributors to evil goes beyond the protagonists of harm to the silent chorus who look but do not see, who hear but do not listen. Their silent presence at the scene of evil doings makes the hazy line between good and evil even fuzzier. We ask next: Why don’t people help? Why don’t people act when their aid is needed? Is their passivity a personal defect of callousness, of indifference? Alternatively, are there identifiable social dynamics once again at play?" (From Chapter 13, page 314; Philip Zimbardo – The Lucifer Effect). Every time you buy a fair trade you are saying no to the big corporations who are guilty for the deaths of millions every single year. Please know how important that action is! Or when you buy those discounted clothes you are really advocating atrocious working conditions for Chinese workers. Do you really know the human cost of those cheap grapes in supermarket? Is ignorance, greed or not caring an excuse to let millions die each year? Consumer power is vital; if everyone decided to only buy fair trade goods it would force companies to actually give a crap about humanity as we would be hurting them where it mattered most; their profits! See I am of the opinion that the majority is just another way of saying mediocrity; the majority may have might but it is never ever right! Please prove me wrong! Do you want to be with the majority who don’t care or would you resolve to change the world? Did you know that 20,000 African children are dying every single day! (In actual fact it’s probably higher than this as that’s 2003-2004 UN and WHO figures) Consider this; how much of a fuss was made over Madeline McCann, how much money was spent on one single middle class white girl; who is quite frankly already dead and it’s the parent’s fault she went missing! Is it an African parent’s fault that they don’t have enough food? Is it an African Parents fault their home has been destroyed by war? How much newspaper column space is wasted over celebrities? Why is that? Is it because the West doesn’t want to be inconvenienced by the suffering of millions, so would rather waste its time on trivialities? Have you noticed a contradiction in what Hollywood and mass media tell us? Hollywood tells us one person can make a difference; Newspapers tell that you can’t make a difference, so why bother? Do you know what kind of hero’s people love most? Its failed hero’s… Why? Because they can justify themselves by saying ‘look what happened to him when he tried to make a difference’. What I would say is human history shows that 1 good man or woman is worth more than a thousand evil men and woman. Think William Wilberforce, Oscar Schindler, Mother Teresa, Paul Rusesabagina etc. Your actions and conduct are vital for millions! In 1966 the late Robert F. Kennedy gave an impassioned speech against the Apartheid regime, in part of it he said; “It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centres of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance”.

 

So what can you do?

 

1. Love! Love is the most powerful force in the world! It overcomes everything! Socrates said; “Do not do to others what angers you if done to you by others”. If humanity could do that would the world not be a much better place? Even if everything I believe of Jesus is false; 2 teachings hold true; love and forgiveness! On love he said “Love your neighbour as yourself”. Forgiveness is vital as the alternative is hate and consider what that does; Bitterness, blame anger and hatred; for humans hatred only destroys the hater; the object of their hatred is either unaware or doesn’t care that they are hated. People should let go of negative emotions such as these; it will only lead down a dark path, as the hater will only become the hated after they do that which caused them to hate in the first place. It only forms a destructive circle.

2. When buying goods consider where they have come from and the human cost; where possible buy fair-trade goods. If the product you want is not fair-trade write to the supermarket complaining; consider not buying that product until it is fair-trade. Consider just shopping at the Co-op and Marks and Spencer who are much more ethical supermarkets when compared to the others. Edit: Fairtrade link added... http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/

3. Write to politicians complaining about the lack of action in Africa; demand they call large corporations to count. Get Political! People have forgotten how much politics does really affect them and the world; don’t let the government get away with its current mediocrity!

4. Petition friend to do the same!

 

This may seem a hassle, and may cost more; but how much is the life of another human being worth too you? 17p for cheaper bananas? Save £10 on food so you can buy that CD you wanted? These actions may seem small; but as Robert Kennedy’s quote illustrates it does make a difference and if enough people do it will change the world!

Haile Selassie the former Emperor of Ethiopia said during an impassioned speech to the league of nations about Mussolini’s Italy’s invasion of his country; "Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph." Suffice to say as usual the politicians heard the speech, applauded, spoke about action and did nothing. Let’s not be like the mediocre politicians, who do nothing but self-serve, caring nothing for the troubles of others. Let’s shame and petition them into action! And let’s act ourselves!

 

An inspirational video for you all; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGeZYednWtI

 

That concludes my thinking if your not a Christian; however if you consider yourself one please read on. There will of course be those are going to complain about some of the contents of this and ask what is the point of this? However I will ask this question where are the Christian social reformers seeking to improve the lot of others? Is the Church loving those who no-one else will? Enculturation is insidious and too many Christians are following normal culture! Christians are meant to be a light to the world; yet constantly I meet non-Christians who have been judged and hurt by Christians! What is going on? Now I love the camp (Taunton 3) I go to because it is always of profound encouragement too me as it is a picture of Christian love, even the youngest members could teach much too most Christians much older and supposedly wiser. See the fact is that the majority of Christians are of continual discouragement too me. Where is the love? Why all the petty fallouts over doctrine? There are too many Christians who talk a good game, but never put that talk into action! See; intelligent critics are always your best friends as they show you where you can improve; too often what atheists say of Christianity is brushed off as persecution. So easily are excuses made and the persecution card played; apparently Gay people are hostile to Christianity. Has it occurred to many of you that’s because of the way Christians have treated them? When society attacks and berates any minority the Church should be there to love and care for them; the Church has far too often lead the berating of gay people. We are meant to radiate with Gods love yet, so many Christians use their faith to hurt others! Is that what Jesus would have done? Do you know what the stereotype of a Christian is? A geeky, narrow-minded, judgemental and sad; thing is there is always an element of truth to the stereotypes! As Mother Teresa said; “If you judge people, you have no time to love them”. If you are a Christian I beg and plead with you to be love to the world; don’t judge… love! The western Church will be of no success until Christians unite, in reality what your ‘pure’ doctrine and failure to get on with other Christians outside that really indicates is a deep and profound lack of love. Your doctrine maybe ‘pure’ but in reality you have missed the point of Jesus and grace! Some very good friends of mine are involved with this initiative; http://www.jengauganda.org/ I would encourage any Christians to support and encourage them in anyway you can! My mood and thoughts on this is perfectly encapsulated by this song;

 

Peace and love! GB Jx

 

3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?

 

Is the OT abit bloodthirsty? Yes, do I agree with the verses used in the video? No. Why are they there? If God wrote it ask him

 

Am I creating rationalisations below... You decide?

 

First question, is anyone innocent? Why is the world a crap place to live in? Even from an atheistic viewpoint, you can't tell me most people are Mother Teresa. As for as I understand the commandments they were only for Jews, the people who were killed in the land are recorded in the Bible as sacrificing their Children to their Gods; so don't think they were a nice bunch.

 

4. Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

 

Please show me places in the NIV where there is anti-scientific nonsense.

 

Please do not use beliefs of fundementalists to portray all Christians as thinking the same...the fact that Genesis is written in the style of a Hebrew poem seems to be conveniantly forgotten by many people. It is at least in my interpretation not meant to be taken literally.

 

Flood? Meh, I dunno.

 

Jonah; if God is God why can't he suspend normal laws if he chooses to do so? Are you not stuck in the matrix, in that you think some things are possible and others arent? But surely if you built the system, you can override it?

 

Theoretically isn't it possible to survive inside a whale?

 

Adam, dust; Poem anyone?

 

5. Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery

 

I haven't checked the verses used, but the wider context is needed, and this reply is already getting very long!

 

Why do you think he is? As I understand it the kind of Slavery in the old testament required the master to treat the slaves well. In the new testamanet, Paul orders that slaves should be treated well. And indeed asks for Philemon to free Onesimus from slavery.

 

Slavery is and was barbaric, but a fact of life still today; are you really free or are you a slave to your work or country? The Bible as far as I understand it demands slaves to be treated well...

 

6. Why do bad things happen to Good people?

 

Ahh, the age old question... Suggested reading if anyone is up for it; the Book of Job; I can return to this question if anyone wishes, there is not an easy answer to it, but I do have Peter Vardy's excellent book 'The Thinkers Guide to Evil' which has a whole chapter devoted to this question. Interesting reading, I would reccomend the book

 

7. Why didn't Jesus miracles leave behind any evidence?

 

Please indicate to me from the said miracles any evidence that should have stayed behind?

 

8. How do you explain the fact Jesus has never appeared to you

 

I have a friend in the middle east (due to the sensitive nature cannot post here, some of you I will trust with the details (Achilles)... Basically I have a friend who was a Muslim, but became a Christian because of a dream he had about Jesus. Please do not think this was an easy decision on his part; he was thrown out of his family and persecuted by the state. But he would say he has seen Jesus.

 

9. Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and blood?

 

The above in literal form is a catholic thing. I eat bread and wine in rememberance of what Jesus did for me. Much the same as we may have a 1 minutes silence to commemorate what those who died in the WW2 had done for us.

 

10. Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?

 

Same reason many Christians don't behave like Jesus; 'Love your neighbour' and 'Turn the other cheek' maybe said alot but when are they done?

 

Does the above fact say anything abotu God? Yes and no....

 

I Hope that was an interesting read!

[Ray Jones]

Well, anyone can know what number you picked when you pick it. Nothing special about that.

As long as it's in my mind, I doubt anyone knows.

 

But forget omniscience. If god is omnipotent, he isn't restricted by time or causality.[/Quote]Oh, he would be restricted by time and causality. However, he wouldn't be as restricted as we are, yes.

 

So he could know what number you pick before you pick it, whether or not you have free will. Thus, your free will is still irrelevant.

Again, free will does not mean no one knows, or no one is able to know beforehand. It means ability to decide freely, even if someone is able to predict that decision. End of story

 

I'd much rather believe I have free will with no god, rather than god gave me meaningless free will, thank you very much.

Meaningless free will? Like in that dream I had where these two girls asked me if I would mind when they tied me to their bed and then do me, and I said "no, it would in fact be great" but they didn't tie me to the bed and laid me on the couch the other minute.

[Jae Onasi]

Meaningless free will? Like in that dream I had where these two girls asked me if I would mind when they tied me to their bed and then do me, and I said "no, it would in fact be great" but they didn't tie me to the bed and laid me on the couch the other minute.

Oh geez--I'm female and can feel that...ache...on that one.

 

CS Lewis wrote a great book on why bad things happen to good people, titled ''The Problem of Pain''. Anyone who wants to address the issue in any depth should read it.

[Ray Jones]

CS Lewis wrote a great book on why bad things happen to good people, titled ''The Problem of Pain''. Anyone who wants to address the issue in any depth should read it.

In the first place there is the question what are "good" or "bad" people, and what are "good" or "bad" things. Next is, why it is assumed that "bad" things should not or can not happen to "good" people?

[Totenkopf]

I'd say it's probably just presumption on the part of the "victim".

[Corinthian]

Free Will isn't mentioned in the Bible anyway, you know. What's with the fixation on that, anyway? It's getting tedious.

 

Ray, why would God be bound by Time or Causality? He's God, it's understood that God is beyond time. Created it. You could say he's of the Fifth Dimension, but I think that's oversimplifying the matter.

[Ray Jones]

I think it's probably a bad example, but when you make a hammer, you cannot use it as screwdriver.

[mimartin]

I think it's probably a bad example, but when you make a hammer, you cannot use it as screwdriver.

If man can so could God.

 

And make it pretty too.

[Ray Jones]

with a fancy led display scrolling text like "screwin u w/ ma hueg hama"

[Achilles]

So, let me recap the recent free will argument here.

 

Devon presents an argument and says one of the given premises is God is all-powerful.

Right.

 

Devon proceeds to make conclusions, point 6 of which limits God's power, in contradiction.

It's a contradiction to you because it doesn't meet your preconcieved notion of omnipotence, which coincidentally, is a paradox (god can both make the stone *and* lift it). You want to pin the problem on Devon for the contraditions rather than see that the argument itself is flawed ("You're being asked to choose between logic and faith, and not only are you voting for faith, but you're accusing the logic of being wrong.")

 

Jae points this out this logical inconsistency.

Kinda sorta. You do point out that there does seem to be a problem, but you've yet to be specific about where the problem is or what's causing it (hint: it's the premise that god is all-powerful ).

 

Achilles says Jae is wrong and accuses all theists of intellectual dishonesty, despite the fact that he can't prove God _doesn't_ exist, all he can prove is that he himself doesn't believe.

Yes, but unrelated. FWIW, the burden of proof for god's existence is not mine, it's yours. As many people have pointed out, one cannot prove a negative.

 

Jae asks why this logical inconsistency is not a logical inconsistency.

 

Achilles brings out the old 'God and the rock' thing.

Achilles brings out the old "god and the rock" thing as an analogy for why the argument that god is all-powerful does not work.

 

Jae brings out points that discredit this new (old) logical paradox, and points out that this does not negate the problem of the inconsistent conclusion in point 6.

Actually, you did no such thing. I already pointed out how your arguments (and the arguments of your sources) are flawed, however you haven't addressed my rebuttal. Sadly, this seems to follow the pattern of "ignore points that I don't like and repeat earlier points as though rebuttals were never offered" that you and I have problems with in the past. Repeating your arguments is not going to make them true.

 

Achilles then states that point 6 can be true because all-powerful doesn't mean 'all-powerful'.

No, Achilles points out Point 6 has to be true if one wishes to argue that god is "all-powerful". Again, we're at odds because you want god to be both all-powerful and not all-powerful at the same time (but still call it "all-powerful" anyway). FWIW, I think I know precisely where you're getting hung up. Unfortunately, I lack the skills to be able to show you how the logic is flawed in a way that you'll understand (I had hoped the rock thing would have helped).

 

Jae wonders what definition Achilles is using for 'all-powerful' that could be anything but all-powerful. Jae points out there is no argument in the first place without the given premise.

Indeed. All-powerful is all-powerful. If you wanted to argue that god was merely "very powerful" and that human being were "more powerful than that", then your argument for free will would hold up. But then, if we're more powerful than god, why would we need him and why can't we do the things that he can do.

 

God being all-powerful makes a lot more sense if you also accept determinism, but the trade off is that you have to accept that there is no free will. You can't have both at the same time. It just doesn't work.

 

Achilles says God isn't all-powerful, so point 6 can be true, which can only mean that God is not infinite.

No I think you might be slightly fuzzy on what I'm saying. If god is all-powerful then point 6 is true (and there is no free will). If you want to argue that god is all-powerful, you must accept that point 6 is true (and that there is no free will). However, if you want to argue that point 6 is not true, then you have to accept that god is not-all powerful. Trying to argue that god is both all-powerful and not all-powerful is a paradox. Instead of dealing with the paradox, you're accusing Devon of introducing a contradiction (except you aren't telling us why it's a contradiction).

 

Jae decides that changing a given premise in the middle of an argument to suit one's intended conclusion is intellectual dishonesty.

Indeed it would be, Jae

 

However, this brings to mind another question: even if there is free will, if god knows what you're going to do, does it matter if you even have free will? Free will might as well be a delusion, because you would never know anyway.

Yep

 

If god knows which number you'll pick, and he has the power to do anything, he could ensure that the winning number is never yours, in essence making your free will absolutely worthless.

Yep

 

So God is responsible for everything we do as humans? Since he created us?

Yep

(In an infinite universe god put the tree on the same planet with the people? Sure, I suppose adam and eve bear some responsibility for the act, but its god's tree, god's rules, and god's stupid decision. Shouldn't he bear some culpability as well? Or is this merely a poorly thought out fairy tale? Hmmm.)

 

This will as a warning be a mamouth post; attempting to address several things including trying to answer all 10 questions of the youtube video to the best of my ability;

I'd love to respond to your points, but I would prefer to do so in the existing thread.

 

That is something that ultimely only Jae can answer; however I would venture, that knowing her as I do, I would describe her as honourable and as having integrity (I would also say this of you Achilles); as such twisting of words if occured would be accidental.

I don't think that intellectual dishonesty in necessarily malevolent. I am not questioning her intention to live as an honorable person or her wish to do the right thing. I think you can question the intellectual honesty of a person's position without attacking their character.

 

How do I know things about Jesus?

 

We perhaps venture into Philosophical ground there though; how do we 'know' anything? I mean Descartes did a damn good job of causing us to doubt everthing, but not such a good job of putting things back togeather; same can be said of George Berkeley; and despite some claiming that 'kicking a stone' disproves Immaterialism, I have to disagree. I don't think science can disprove immaterialism, however I do not think such thinking is helpful for every day exsistance; I shall return slightly below to answer what I know....

I don't think that the scientific process can either, however the scientific process is under no obligation to do so, considering that the burden of proof is on the theistic community.

 

You seem to be acknowledging that we don't *know*. Therefore, I argue, pretending to know anyway is intellectually dishonest.

 

All humans always use opinion though, some more informed some less informed than others; but in the grand scale of things as Socrates remarked; "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing". Personally I couldn't speak about much if I was constrained to proof beyond doubt on any topics; due to the fact that however many books I have read, there are still more to read.

Great points but nothing that really addresses my argument. Opinion is fine so long as we acknowledge it as such. The difference between "it is my opinion that god is benevolent" and "god is benevolent" is significant. With that said, I do think it wise to acknowledge that both statements are conjecture and have no evidence to support them.

 

In my opinion partly true, I never fully engaged with the debate over his attributes; I do not know if God is omnipotent or not; such a fact has little effect on my everday life; or my faith. I believe there to be a God, that he is very powerful and Jesus is his son.

Why not believe in flying spaghetti monsters, allah, and invisible pink unicorns too? You make it sound as though your faith is arbitrary and casual, however the fact that you participate in these threads and defend the positions that you do lead me to suspect that neither is the case.

 

Firstly I shall quote;

<snip>

I have seen things that I cannot explian; now I am not a usual type of believer; my locus of control is ridiculasly high on the internal side; meaning I was always (and in many respects still am); I control my own destiny type people. If I hear a noise late at night; I do not think it to be a ghost, and much like Richard Dawkins, when I see faces in curtains I go over and examine the curtain. If I hear voices late at night I do not assume them to be the dead speaking to me, but some other kind of phenomenon.

 

The above said I have seen things that defy explanation (such as leg healing earlier, and despite some protestations in this thread, I know what I saw and made no mistake); I myself have been 'healed' of appendicitus and of an emotional wound. I do not often represent these as 'proofs' for God as they are subject to my expierance, and depend on how much validity you wish to put into my testimony.

Once upon a time, the cause of apples falling from trees was an "unexplainable phenomenon". "Unexplainable phenomenon" are not evidence for the existence of god. They are evidence for questions that we do not have answers for. Pretending to have answers when we really don't is not intellectually honest.

 

In answer to the question I dunno; if there is a God, in many respect he will beyond our comprehention (especially if said God is outside of time), if God is recognizable would depend on how intelligent and if we were at all like him. In the Christian conception you do have a relationship with God.

This doesn't answer the question, my friend. Can we acknowledge that this is your best guess and not a real answer?

 

I think that analogy somewhat unfair.

Fair enough. Why?

 

(I am skipping your analogy because it is full of holes and I think we would quickly get wildly off course trying to address them)

 

Intellectual dishonesty as far as I would understand it would be a deliberate attempt to mislead someone, for my part I am not on any concious level attempting to do so, and I don't think Jae is either.

Intellectual dishonesty is intentional, but it is not necessarily intentionally malicious as specified earlier. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and all that jazz, as it were.

 

Question for you: Telling your children that god is real when you don't have any evidence that it's true; honest or dishonest?

 

I wasn't accusing you of being intellectually dishonest; lets phrase differently on a scale of 1 to 7; one being absolute belief in God and seven being absolute atheism, where would you put yourself?

I am a de facto atheist, which is about a 6 if we're using the same scale.

 

I ventured forth a specific quote (of a rather messed up man), which at least if God is true, would seem a logical step to me.

But it's still a guess and nothing changes that. "Logical step" implies that there were specific premises in use, but the premises themselves are fabrications of his imagination.

 

It like a little girl decribing for you her dream house: Of course the descriptions make sense. SHE'S THE ONE MAKING IT UP!!

 

Anyways, now onto the 10 youtube questions, which I havent as yet seen anyone tackle....

Skipping these for now. I'll post my response over in the existing thead.

 

Talk to you soon.

[Arcesious]

So, if he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere, he doesn't defy that logic... He could be omnipowerful and omniscient in comparison to the entire present universe, but metaphysically, he couldn't be as powerful as he could possibly be... So he would make himself even more infinite, to constantly becoem more and more infinite, more and more powerful... He may nto be able to ever truly be all-powerful, but he is all powerful and all knowing in the sense that he would infinitly and forever become more and more powerful and all knowing...

 

However I can't prove that... It could just as easily be the multiple other ways around... Therfore, it is ultimately impossible to prove or disprove God unless if he proved himself.

 

Don't forget this...

Basically I am stating that God can never truly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent truly, but can be by a metaphysical standard in comparison to the rest of the universe...

However also remember the last 3 sentences before you jump to conclusions.

We can't prove that God can truly be all of those 3 omnis.

But you Christians assume he is.

But you can't really know that...

You can't prove how he would be all 3 of those omnis due to the logic argument of my statement I quoted...

If you can't prove that he is all of those 3 omnis, then why keep arguing that he truly is? The statement I quoted probably describes just how omnisicent, omnipotent, and omnipresent God could possibly be, and you probably can't prove him to be any more powerful than that. Infinity is infinity, afterall. Infinity will never be bigger than itself, and it can never stop because it's infinity, so technically, God could never be truly all-knowing, all-powerful, and everywhere because no matter how much more powerful he gets by getting more and more infinite, infinity would go on forever, and it would never end at a poitnt hat would truly make him be all 3 of those omnis.

If you can prove he can, then I'll be very suprised, but that seems to be as powerful, knowing, and present as you can possibly assume God to be.

Note lastly, the kind of form of God you are trying to prove is still an assumtion without enough proof to make him fact.

[SpartanPride]

God can be as big as infinity with the three omni's, but humans cannot comprehend it. It's just like how God never was born, created or anything like that, he was just always there, and always will. Humans just do not have anything to compare that to so we can't really understand it..

[jonathan7]

I'd love to respond to your points, but I would prefer to do so in the existing thread.

 

Okies, though Han Sala had brought it up in this thread, hence me responding here

 

Also, before we continue the discussion, may we acknoledge one fact, you are my friend, more intelligent, wiser and better read than me (perhaps one of the reasons I so enjoy our discussions). However currently I still have my world view, as such I will argue for it, while being a little out of my depth.

 

I don't think that intellectual dishonesty in necessarily malevolent. I am not questioning her intention to live as an honorable person or her wish to do the right thing. I think you can question the intellectual honesty of a person's position without attacking their character.

 

Very well, perhaps at this point it may proove helpful for me to give a brief overview of why I am a Christian.

 

1. My conclusion still and based on a variety of different reading (Christian, athiest, agnostic) is that from the evidence, I think Jesus rose from the dead; which begs rather large questions about him. (If you wish for a Bibliography I'm sure I can whip one up, suffice to say, that while you may be disapointed with my conclusion, I think you would be happy with the variety of my reading.

2. The Big Bang; it at least seems to my layman understand and reading of the subject; that the Big Bang if true, presents a few problems, e.g. what caused it. As ever if you wish me to review anything I am always happy to do so. Much as your going to dislike this quote;

 

Peter Vardy makes the following observation in his book ‘The Thinkers Guide to Evil’; “The Sheer improbability of the precise conditions necessary for stars and planets to form – let alone life – is so unlikely that it is much more plausible that an intelligence was responsible for the universe than it was simply a matter of chance”.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Vardy_%28theologian%29 - not to be confused with scary Christian fundemtanlist dude of same name.

 

3. Personal expierance; from healings, to seeing the strangest down and outs, convert and turn their lives around.

 

In truth and may be of interest for you; my biggest reason for doubting Christianity is other Christians.

 

I don't think that the scientific process can either, however the scientific process is under no obligation to do so, considering that the burden of proof is on the theistic community.

 

I'm not sure the burden of proof lies with anyone; in truth I'm unsure if the matter will ever truly be settled; as even if Atheism is true, it will only narrow the probability of God, but never be able to disproove his exsistance.

 

You seem to be acknowledging that we don't *know*. Therefore, I argue, pretending to know anyway is intellectually dishonest.

 

Firstly; the questions is 'How do we know anything?' and also 'what is truth?'. I raised those, as philosophically I don't think they have ever really been answered. However;

 

What exactly have I pretended to know? I have for the most part avoided the debate on omnipotence etc. I have just presented my 3 points for belief; please let me know where you think I have pretended to know something

 

Great points but nothing that really addresses my argument. Opinion is fine so long as we acknowledge it as such. The difference between "it is my opinion that god is benevolent" and "god is benevolent" is significant. With that said, I do think it wise to acknowledge that both statements are conjecture and have no evidence to support them.

 

I do not have scientific evidence to support such statements; I do always try to do my best to indicate when I'm offering opinion (which is most of the time).

 

Why not believe in flying spaghetti monsters, allah, and invisible pink unicorns too? You make it sound as though your faith is arbitrary and casual, however the fact that you participate in these threads and defend the positions that you do lead me to suspect that neither is the case.

 

See the three overview points above. Though a quick question for you; has my faith ever done you any harm? My aim is always 'to love my neighbour' and I do hope that comes across in our discussions

 

If what I believe is true, I wish to answer friends questions, I hope while you may disagree you can understand that.

 

Once upon a time, the cause of apples falling from trees was an "unexplainable phenomenon". "Unexplainable phenomenon" are not evidence for the existence of god. They are evidence for questions that we do not have answers for. Pretending to have answers when we really don't is not intellectually honest.

 

It would be extremley strange that these unexplainable phenomenon occured at times of prayer, and at the very least go counter to the usual scientific laws. It would at least to me seem very strange that they occured just after prayer. (While I do conceed prayer studies, (or at least the ones I have seen in the BMJ; show while prayer seems to slightly improve recovery rates, it is inter faith).

 

This doesn't answer the question, my friend. Can we acknowledge that this is your best guess and not a real answer?

 

I shall examine and think over this and get back to you

 

Fair enough. Why?

 

At least for my part, I do constantly examine and re-evaluate my position. If I am in error, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it being 'intellectual dishonesty' on my part. Personally I always much prefer someone who is well thought out in a contrary position to my own, than someone who agrees blindy and with no real reason to do so.

 

(I am skipping your analogy because it is full of holes and I think we would quickly get wildly off course trying to address them)

 

Okies, I quite liked it but it was one I'd quickly knocked up.

 

Intellectual dishonesty is intentional, but it is not necessarily intentionally malicious as specified earlier. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and all that jazz, as it were.

 

So you think I'm being intellectually dishonest?

 

Question for you: Telling your children that god is real when you don't have any evidence that it's true; honest or dishonest?

 

Depends what you mean by 'evidence' as I think we would disagree on that, however I think you'd like the way I'd bring kids up; their life, their choices; whenever in a position of teaching I supply the relevant positions and arguments and say go make your own mind up; lest I'm approached with polemic (and even if that polemic agrees with my position) I will respond with a contrary plolemic. (My opinion is most people don't think enough these days).

 

I am a de facto atheist, which is about a 6 if we're using the same scale.

 

I'd assume so, I'm a 2. The point was more, no matter how 'sure' you are you leave a little room for error.

 

Skipping these for now. I'll post my response over in the existing thead.

 

Talk to you soon.

 

Okies, I have already briefly posted there. Talk to you soon, thanks for reading, and hope it was of interest.

[Samuel Dravis]

I managed to force myself into this discussion (as much as I hate it) because I saw Samuel Dravis. And as soon as I get answer from Samuel Dravis, I'm getting out of here.

 

So, it's the debate between "free will and omniscience of God", so, um, can I try the same argument I used against you, except semi-refined (and hopefully alone)?

 

Samuel Dravis, I have re-read the original topic that spawned Kavar's Corner, Ethics and Religion (a rather, RATHER ugly topic in retrospect, oh I hate it), where I coined the term "RICE", or Random Intelligence Creation Engine, as way to resolve the delimma between an all-powerful God with the potential to know anything and, well, free will. As a repost of the idea of RICE:

 

 

 

One minor objection you had to the idea was this:

 

 

 

I objected by arguing God can do something irrational, but now I realize my error. I has misread the 'could' in your statement as 'must'.

 

God has the potential to know everything, but that doesn't mean he has to know everything. As you said before, he 'could' know everything, but being God, he has the potential to abandon such knowledge of everything if he so wills, likely by self-inducing a sort of forgetfulness.

 

In which case, the trait "all-powerful" will trumpt "all-knowing" in which that God is "all-knowing", but he can suspend that trait himself, and become "less-than-all-knowing". The fact that God is "all-knowing" would not be a key element of God, but rather, just one attribute that God has selected himself, somewhat like a piece of clothing that God wishes to wear on a day-to-day basis. If I wear a blue shirt all the time, that does not mean that blue shirt is 'essential' to who I am.

 

(Hence, God can still follow the laws of rationality. He would be all-powerful, so the trait of knowledge can be suspended. The only limit to his omipresence would be his inability to suspend logic, that is, God cannot make 2+2=5.)

 

The only good reason God would wish to forget what he has done is primarly to ensure that his creation in the RICE, man, would have free will. I also made the pretty fatal assumption that God himself has free will, and that God would desire for man to have free will too.

 

I hope this isn't misinterperation of key doctrine, as I don't want that to happen.

 

...All other arguments against the existence of RICE in granting free will are currently valid, but I'm willing to accept their faults for now. I just want to see if RICE can sustain itself currently.

I'm not sure, actually. It seems strange for God to be able to suspend one of his attributes. A result of this would be that you have a less specific definition of God - he'd no longer have the defining characteristic of omniscience, but only omnipotence, etc. It would also raise the question of which characteristics are essential to God, if omniscience is not. I'm not sure many would be satisfied with the possible answers to that question.

 

So, let me recap the recent free will argument here.

 

Devon presents an argument and says one of the given premises is God is all-powerful.

 

Devon proceeds to make conclusions, point 6 of which limits God's power, in contradiction.

 

Jae points this out this logical inconsistency.

 

Jae asks why this logical inconsistency is not a logical inconsistency.

This problem arises only because you're using two different definitions of omnipotent. Point 6, to Devon, is not, strictly speaking, a limitation on God's power. It is like your quote from CS Lewis: "Nonsense remains nonsense even if you speak it about God." If the argument results in a nonsensical conclusion, then it's just nonsense, not a limitation. I don't consider, for example, the number three not being a color a limitation of the number three. I don't consider God being unable to create a rock that he couldn't lift a limitation of God. The words just don't go together that way.

 

So no, it's not like this argument is limiting God in any way. The argument is merely bringing out into the open what was already true.

 

Jae brings out points that discredit this new (old) logical paradox, and points out that this does not negate the problem of the inconsistent conclusion in point 6.

But, as I'm sure you'll notice, the conclusion wasn't inconsistent if you find that God is a logically analyzable being. As I said in post #360,

I am assuming that God is a... rationally understandable god here. If he wasn't, then him promising that we'd go to heaven and that he loves us would be meaningless, in the sense that we couldn't trust him. Maybe devout prayer means "please send me to hell" in god's logic. Who knows? In any case, it would be completely futile to try to figure it out.

Achilles then states that point 6 can be true because all-powerful doesn't mean 'all-powerful'.

 

Jae wonders what definition Achilles is using for 'all-powerful' that could be anything but all-powerful. Jae points out there is no argument in the first place without the given premise.

See what I said above. It does mean all-powerful -- just not incoherent.

 

Achilles says God isn't all-powerful, so point 6 can be true, which can only mean that God is not infinite.

No. It would only mean that free will, as something independent of God's control, does not exist. Yes, this creates problems for personal responsibility. It's up to you to decide whether you can accept that or not.

 

The question is whether omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive. In my experience, this argument never gets anywhere, because the "god is infinite" copout can be used just about everywhere.

Actually, I don't think it can be used. You can admit that it's nonsense to say that God can create something he can't lift -- but that means you've come up with something that is actually meaningful in order to explain what God is capable of (in this case, like Aquinas, you've decided that omnipotence means the ability to do anything logically possible). If you're bound to a logically comprehensible solution, this particular copout is not allowed.

 

Free Will isn't mentioned in the Bible anyway, you know. What's with the fixation on that, anyway? It's getting tedious.

If you didn't see it, I recommended a similar solution to the problem earlier, in post #360 (the bit where it's talking about Pascal's idea about the God of the Bible).

 

Ray, why would God be bound by Time or Causality? He's God, it's understood that God is beyond time. Created it. You could say he's of the Fifth Dimension, but I think that's oversimplifying the matter.

He isn't bound by time or causality. He is bound by logic.

 

 

Firstly; the questions is 'How do we know anything?' and also 'what is truth?'. I raised those, as philosophically I don't think they have ever really been answered.

Actually they have.

[jonathan7]

Actually they have.

 

Where exactly in the supplied link is the answer? I didn't spot it, I haven't read that particular work of Wittgenstein's.

[Arcesious]

God can be as big as infinity with the three omni's, but humans cannot comprehend it. It's just like how God never was born, created or anything like that, he was just always there, and always will. Humans just do not have anything to compare that to so we can't really understand it..

 

How can he be as big as infinity with the 3 omnis? Infinity is infinity. You can never be infinity. You can't be sure he was always there either, or will always be here if he is here.

And btw, don't underestimate the human mind. I think many can perceive what is possible and what is not possible quite clearly. Even infinity is left subject to the universal laws, mainly infinity being infinite. (If that even makes sense ) Infinity can't suddenly be infinity, because it goes on forever. So God can't be truly beyond infiniteness, because infinity would never end. Infinity can't just 'be infinity' right all of sudden. Saying God was already infinite doesn't make logical sense, because that means you are saying infinity has an end, but you can't really know that, because the concept of infinity literally means, 'soemthing that goes on forever'.

Don't try to prove God by saying the human mind cannot understand him. That doesn't mean that because you can't understand him to the highest detail, God is all 3 omnis, it only means that you can't prove he is all 3 omnis. So because you can't prove how he is, why beleive he is?

Also, to note again, the universe could be any other way too, there could be a God, or not a God, or many Gods, or infinite other things.

[Samuel Dravis]

Where exactly in the supplied link is the answer? I didn't spot it, I haven't read that particular work of Wittgenstein's.

The part that is about "Language, meaning and use" shows a somewhat simplistic view of how you can find the meaning of a word. "Truth" is a word, no more special than any other. While he doesn't to my knowledge address the specific question "What is truth?", he does deal with the same form of questioning ("what is the meaning of a word?") and the same solution can be applied.

 

So, an answer would be: Truth is a word used only in certain situations, such as when you're making a claim and it can be other than you say (if it means something for a statement to be true, then it must also be possible for that same statement to be false). Some examples might help show the meaning:

 

"I saw it, I swear it's true." -- Reaffirming that you're being entirely accurate when, e.g., retelling a story. You'd say this when you want someone to believe you (which may entail some subsequent action on their part).

 

"When x=5, x+5=12 is not true." -- A definitional statement that shows a particular way of using some symbols, some of which are called "true" and others "false."

 

"You don't know the true power of the Dark Side." -- Simply: you're ignorant and I want to tempt you to come over and hang with me.

 

It's worth noting that every specific instance in which truth is used is easily understood and causes no metaphysical trouble. It's only when questions are asked about some generalized, "ultimate" truth that confusion begins. Why? Because there is no general form of truth, any more than there is a general form of good music, or a general form of beautiful things. It's like asking what yellow is, all the while adamantly refusing to reference anything yellow. That's not to say that many similarities exist between different usages of the word "truth", because they most certainly do. But it's important to remember that those similarities are not necessary. We don't get any closer to what truth really is by making the definition even more general.

 

If you skip down to the section entitled "Meaning and definition", you'll find a part that talks about games. I'll quote a small portion from the Investigations to illustrate this point.

 

66. Consider for example the proceedings that we call "games". I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all? -- Don't say: "There must be something common, or they would not be called 'games' "-but look and see whether there is anything common to all. -- For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don't think, but look! -- Look for example at board-games, with their multifarious relationships. Now pass to card-games; here you find many correspondences with the first group, but many common features drop out, and others appear. When we pass next to ball-games, much that is common is retained, but much is lost.-- Are they all 'amusing'? Compare chess with noughts and crosses. Or is there always winning and losing, or competition between players? Think of patience. In ball games there is winning and losing; but when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches it again, this feature has disappeared. Look at the parts played by skill and luck; and at the difference between skill in chess and skill in tennis. Think now of games like ring-a-ring-a-roses; here is the element of amusement, but how many other characteristic features have disappeared! sometimes similarities of detail. And we can go through the many, many other groups of games in the same way; can see how similarities crop up and disappear. And the result of this examination is: we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and cries-crossing: sometimes overall similarities.

 

67. I can think of no better expression to characterize these similarities than "family resemblances"; for the various resemblances between members of a family: build, features, colour of eyes, gait, temperament, etc. etc. overlap and cries-cross in the same way.-And I shall say: 'games' form a family.

In the same way, the different usages of truth form a family-- and your question "what is truth?" is answerable, because the only way to correctly - intelligibly - ask it is in relation to a specific use of the word truth.

[Rev7]

lol

 

 

No.

How so?

God can be as big as infinity with the three omni's, but humans cannot comprehend it. It's just like how God never was born, created or anything like that, he was just always there, and always will. Humans just do not have anything to compare that to so we can't really understand it.

Humans cannot comprehend the immensity and power of God fully, I believe.

Infinity is infinity. You can never be infinity.

Then why is there an Infinity? NOTE--That was pretty much talking about your entire post. Read the first paragraph of the page.

 

Also, here is a link.