Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Electronic Harassment / Mind Control / Subliminal Programing > The Nature of Matrix Religions and what they mean.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-07-2018, 10:55 PM   #21
tnt1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,453
Likes: 666 (398 Posts)
Default

Didn't "God" get sick from cooking pork incorrectly in the old testament? And then because he didn't know how to cook it he cursed it for all his followers right? So, how exactly does a 'God' get food poisoning?
__________________
Rabbit Hole
tnt1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2018, 11:28 PM   #22
white light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: B-lighty
Posts: 14,765
Likes: 3,484 (2,438 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr0n3 View Post
It means that whatever action X may be, God's foreknowledge is validated by that action. In other words, foreknowledge is contingent upon the action that will take place, as opposed to the action taking place because of what God foreknew.
But if gods foreknowledge is of all possible outcomes then there is no validation, as validation depends upon the possibility of invalidation which would be impossible with foreknowledge of all. And anyway, I never said that the action was a causal result of the foreknowledge of it.

However, if god has no foreknowledge of the action before the action being causally ordained, then how can it be god that causally ordained it and subsequently have foreknowledge of it? And if it wasn't causally ordained then foreknowledge would be impossible. Multiverse theory postulates that every action springs into life a new universe, and every action in that new universe springs into life a new universe. With free will in action that's a heck of a lot of universes. Your postulation of god's relationship to Adam and Eve is akin to multiverse theory, and you are effectively suggesting that god would have foreknowledge of everything that happens in every universe within a multiverse of almost infinite universes. That's quite a lot to validate.

Quote:
If a teacher knows that a lazy student will fail at the end of the year and the teacher is 100% sure of this fact because of years of experience as a teacher, you certainly wouldn't suggest that the teacher's knowledge and what they foresaw has caused the student to fail. That's beyond ridiculous.
Is god merely an observer now? It's a poor teacher who lets a student fail because he is sure that the student will do so. A good teacher will make effort to change such seeming inevitabilities. Otherwise he can hardly call himself a teacher.

Quote:
At best, your example is a semantic relation rather than a causal one. It's not the fact that you knew beforehand that a lunar eclipse will happen on such and such a date that brings about ("necessitates") the event to occur at such and such a date. It is, quite the contrary: it is rather the direct manifestation of planetary motion through your "setup" that has caused the lunar eclipse to occur, which subsequently validated your foreknowledge of that event only once it has come to be.
I never said what you are suggesting I said.

And I don't know why we are talking about eclipses when you were originally talking about Adam & Eve's free will. It's not like the eclipse has free will to choose whether to eclipse or not.

Quote:
I would argue that the lack of interest is merely the result of God's foreknowledge rather than a lack of free will. Either way, it's a moot point since God's interest (be it lacking or not) and free will are mutually inclusive. One does not negate the other.
How do you know what's mutually inclusive for god? One could say that anything was mutually inclusive for and in god. God being god 'n' all. As such it becomes a meaningless statement.

Why did god give free will if he knows all outcomes of what free will will garner? God could have not given free will and the result would be exactly the same for god, foreknowledge of the outcome. There is no difference. So, why bother? What's in it for god?

.

Last edited by white light; 06-07-2018 at 01:19 AM.
white light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2018, 01:40 AM   #23
dr0n3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 661
Likes: 8 (8 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by white light View Post
But if gods foreknowledge is of all possible outcomes then there is no validation, as validation depends upon the possibility of invalidation which would be impossible with foreknowledge of all. You may think that's a semantic argument, in which case redefine your argument to exclude invalid terms, otherwise it makes no sense.
I guess you could use "determined" in this situation. Either way, my argument still stands.


Quote:
And anyway, I never said that the action was a causal result of the foreknowledge of it.
Jesus.. You just shot yourself in the foot with this one. If foreknowledge did not cause the action, then we have one contender left - and that is ... Free Will.

Thank you sir.


Quote:
However, if god has no foreknowledge of the action before the action being causally ordained, then how can it be god that causally ordained it and subsequently have foreknowledge of it?And if it wasn't causally ordained then foreknowledge would be impossible.
Now you're just putting words in my mouth, when did I ever entertain the idea that god may not have foreknowledge prior to the occurrence of an event ? We've already assumed otherwise, that god has foreknowledge. What is being debated here is whether foreknowledge has some sort of causal capacity over the occurrence of an event. Let's not miss the point and go off on an erroneous tangent here.

Quote:
Multiverse theory postulates that every action springs into life a new universe, and every action in that new universe springs into life a new universe. With free will in action that's a heck of a lot of universes. Your postulation of god's relationship to Adam and Eve is akin to multiverse theory, and you are effectively suggesting that god would have foreknowledge of everything that happens in every universe within a multiverse of almost infinite universes. That's quite a lot to validate.
You're going off on a tangent. Alot of assumptions, let's not make this more complicated than it is.



Quote:
Is god merely an observer now? It's a poor teacher who lets a student fail because he is sure that the student will do so. A good teacher will make effort to change such seeming inevitabilities. Otherwise he can hardly call himself a teacher.
Straw man. Intervention is entirely superfluous and does not undermine my argument.


Quote:
I never said what you are suggesting I said.

And I don't know why we are talking about eclipses when you were originally talking about Adam & Eve's free will. It's not like the eclipse has free will to choose whether to eclipse or not.
The analogy is still valid, regardless. The point is that there is nothing to suggest that foreknowledge as a "cause", has the ability to materialize the occurrence of a lunar eclipse.

It is not because I foreknew X would happen that it retroactively causes the occurrence of X to become true.


Quote:
How do you know what's mutually inclusive for god? One could say that anything was mutually inclusive for and in god. God being god 'n' all. As such it becomes a meaningless statement.

It's mutually inclusive as in one does not negate the other. I mean, in what way does God's interest hamper the manifestation of a human's free will ?

Let's suppose that God has no interest in us, humans. Would that somehow halt the ability for humans to exercise free will ? You argue as if God's interest is some sort of causal power.



Quote:
Why did god give free will if he knows all outcomes of what free will will garner? God could have not given free will and the result would be exactly the same for god, foreknowledge of the outcome. There is no difference. So, why bother? What's in it for god?

Well in the case there's no free will, foreknowledge would have an influence over our actions. A bit like an application, its functionality is contingent upon lines of codes programmed by a developer. So yes, there's a difference here.
__________________
Atheism
The belief there was once absolutely nothing. And nothing happened to the nothing until the nothing magically exploded (for no reason), creating everything and everywhere. Then a bunch of the exploded everything magically rearranged itself (for no reason whatsoever), into self-replicating bits which eventually turned into dinosaurs.

And they mock your beliefs.

Last edited by dr0n3; 06-07-2018 at 02:02 AM.
dr0n3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2018, 02:49 AM   #24
white light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: B-lighty
Posts: 14,765
Likes: 3,484 (2,438 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr0n3 View Post
I guess you could use "determined" in this situation. Either way, my argument still stands.



Now you're just putting words in my mouth, when did I ever entertain the idea that god may not have foreknowledge prior to the occurrence of an event ? We've already assumed otherwise, that god has foreknowledge. What is being debated here is whether foreknowledge has some sort of causal capacity over the occurrence of an event. Let's not miss the point and go off on an erroneous tangent here.
I didn't say that you entertained that idea. I am ruminating on the varying possibilities of the topic at hand. However, you may have assumed that god has foreknowledge, I haven't yet assumed that there is a god.

Furthermore, the tangent is yours.

"What is being debated here is whether foreknowledge has some sort of causal capacity over the occurrence of an event." This is a tangent introduced by you.

I am more interested in what god's supposed purpose is in giving free will to Adam and Eve when he has supposed foreknowledge of all outcomes of said free will. I am not putting forward the idea that foreknowledge determines outcome. That is an tangential assumption you've wrongly attributed to me.

Quote:
You're going off on a tangent. Alot of assumptions, let's not make this more complicated than it is.
Complicated?

You wrote "So basically a God that knows what people are going to do before they do it doesn't the negate that fact that people still have the freedom to choose."

Free will isn't free will without a random element. If god foreknows the outcome of random choices then there is paradoxically no randomness and no free will.

Quote:
Straw man. Intervention is entirely superfluous and does not undermine my argument.
You've cast god as a mere observer. Superfluous indeed.

Quote:
The analogy is still valid, regardless. The point is that there is nothing to suggest that foreknowledge as a "cause", has the ability to materialize the occurrence of a lunar eclipse.

It is not because I foreknew X would happen that it retroactively causes the occurrence of X to become true.
I'm not disagreeing with you on that. I don't know why you think that I am.

However, if we are talking about Adam & Eve, then we are assuming that the god that we are talking about is a creator god. Creator of the universe. Are you suggesting that the universe was created with no forethought (and therefore no free will to do so) but yet with instantaneous foreknowledge of all things within said created universe? "Oh shit, how did that happen? I created the universe, gave free will to Adam & Eve, know what's gonna happen, but I had no free will to stop myself from doing so, better get as far away as possible before anyone figures it out"

Quote:
It's mutually inclusive as in one does not negate the other. I mean, in what way does God's interest hamper the manifestation of a human's free will ?
I never said that it did. I merely asked of the logic or rather the illogic of it. Whether free will is hampered or not by god's interest or indifference is not the point. The point is whether foreknowledge gives interest or indifference, and how that might effect god's purpose in creating anything.

Quote:
Let's suppose that God has no interest in us, humans. Would that somehow halt the ability for humans to exercise free will ? You argue as if God's interest is some sort of causal power.
Let's suppose then that god has no causal power. What was he up to in creating Adam & Eve and giving them free will? Let's suppose that god has no interest in humans. What was he up to in creating Adam & Eve and giving them free will?

Quote:
Well in the case there's no free will, foreknowledge would have an influence over our actions. A bit like an application, its functionality is contingent upon lines of codes programmed by a developer. So yes, there's a difference here.
Yes, but there are parameters within free will. Humans haven't got wings and cannot fly. To have foreknowledge of all outcomes derived from free will is therefore still within a set of parameters and therefore could still be contingent upon lines of codes programmed by a developer. So, there is no difference.

Added:
Quote:
Jesus.. You just shot yourself in the foot with this one. If foreknowledge did not cause the action, then we have one contender left - and that is ... Free Will.

Thank you sir.
Did free will cause the eclipse then? Lol.

Not sure that I shot myself in the foot either. I'm not arguing that god has foreknowledge. You are. I am happy to go along with the notion that humans have free will.
.

Last edited by white light; 06-07-2018 at 03:16 AM.
Likes: (1)
white light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2018, 03:42 PM   #25
raburgeson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 470 (316 Posts)
Default

More interesting yet does the original sin actually exist?
raburgeson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2018, 03:56 PM   #26
elshaper
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pandæmonium
Posts: 25,965
Likes: 5,575 (3,762 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinfoil hat View Post
Adam and Eve got told what not to do and paid the price for ignoring that.
They did corrupt all of Humanity after all.

If you aren't going to listen to the creator of everything then who are you gonna listen to?
They were anarchist..you know that?!
Rules are meant to be broken.
elshaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2018, 05:22 PM   #27
fairyprincess
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The city at the edge of the world
Posts: 12,554
Likes: 2,459 (1,357 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr0n3 View Post
That would ultimately clash with his omniscience, since to suggest that he could alter something that was supposedly fixed is tantamount to claiming that he erred in his decision, at some point.

Consider redefining all-powerful as in "able to achieve all possible things."
If you keep imposing limits on god, doesn't he stop being god????
__________________
"if you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you." (Jesus Christ, gospel of thomas.)

Love is natural, Hate is taught....
Likes: (2)
fairyprincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-07-2018, 06:08 PM   #28
tinfoil hat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,004
Likes: 1,234 (713 Posts)
Default

Surely God would create things that didn't need to eat anything to survive.
Why make a world full of things getting brutally murdered every day by the hundreds of millions when you don't have to cos you're omnipotent?
tinfoil hat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2018, 04:23 PM   #29
greatestiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,441
Likes: 237 (200 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude111 View Post
I heard she got pregnant as punishment for eating when he said not to..... (Cant remember where)

Who knows what really took place!
You might want to re-read the story so as to get it straight.

Regards
DL
greatestiam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2018, 04:26 PM   #30
greatestiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,441
Likes: 237 (200 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnt1 View Post
Here is what biblical scholar Mauro Biglino has to say about it. ''After the Adam and the Eve did a certain thing the Elohim is doing nothing else but making a statement of fact, he is not sentencing them. He says: "You made a choice" Now I want you to know that because of this choice that I do not agree with, while the 'serpent' that we spoke of earlier, another person wanted that choice to be made. Or better he intervened to make it easier. One of the Watchers. He intervened while the other one that didn't want this decision says: "You made your choice get out of here!



But you should know that outside of here you will experience both positive and negative sides of that choice. So this is not a condemnation. It is what is called a post eventum virdict meaning you made your own bed now lie in it. In Italian, you wanted the bicycle now pedal. Pedaling is not a condemation it is directly correlated. One cannot get on a bicycle and not pedal. So to say you are on the bike pedal is not a sentence but a statement of fact nothing more.



Then He (Elohim) explains that to Eve regarding procreation you have for reproduction gotten independent from us with this choice. Before your choice you were my business and after now you are not. You are independent. With that choice when you wish to eat you feed yourself. You are independent. You are self sufficient. So out of the protected area they go and only those approved of to stay may stay. You go out on your own bye bye, you will understand. He is sure to tell Eve child labor will hurt. He explains tho, you will understand, not sentencing you.



Ya Da the Jewish verb. Meaning you'll have knowledge of the fact that this choice brings both positive and negative consequences. "TO WA RA" will thus get to know both the good and bad of this situation. Amos has gone even further. He explained that the term RA was used to describe evil or bad. But it has and had nothing to do with the idea of evil or bad in ethics. Instead it refers to attention the 'physiopathology of the human body so Elohim is saying once outside this protected area where we were keeping you, well out here beyond this protected area you will find that you can feel bad.



So we are here not by some guilt, not some sentence but because one of our ancestors got on a bicycle. Now we too must pedal. We have to think about that because this changes the whole story. ''
So you would agree with the Jewish view of man's elevation in Eden and not our fall the way the Christians view it. Good. That is the intelligent view.

Regards
DL
greatestiam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2018, 04:28 PM   #31
greatestiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,441
Likes: 237 (200 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinfoil hat View Post
Adam and Eve got told what not to do and paid the price for ignoring that.
They did corrupt all of Humanity after all.

If you aren't going to listen to the creator of everything then who are you gonna listen to?
They were told, basically, to remain stupid, uneducated and too ignorant to even know they were naked.

Would you follow such a command when an education was available?

Regards
DL
greatestiam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2018, 04:30 PM   #32
greatestiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,441
Likes: 237 (200 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sevenhills View Post
Adam and Eve is just a copy of earlier creation myths made up by Bronze Age people who did not understand the world around them.
True, but that is the easy answer that allows you to ignore the morality of the yarn.

Care to opine?

Regards
DL
greatestiam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2018, 04:31 PM   #33
greatestiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,441
Likes: 237 (200 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by decim View Post
Metaphors.
Met 'afore's.
Meat a' four's.
Meta force.



Will Cain ever be rehabilitated.
So the morality or immorality of the punishment eludes you. Ok.

Regards
DL
greatestiam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2018, 04:32 PM   #34
greatestiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,441
Likes: 237 (200 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creepingdave View Post
Where does Lilith fit in?
In the Jewish version that Christianity cherry picked from when they usurped the Jewish God.

Regards.
DL
greatestiam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2018, 04:40 PM   #35
greatestiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,441
Likes: 237 (200 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raburgeson View Post
More interesting yet does the original sin actually exist?
To Christians, yes. To the actual authors of the myth usurped, the Jews, no.

Why Christianity chose to reverse the moral of the story is likely due to their misogynous and homophobic ways and the fact that Christians wanted to discredit the many serpent cults of those times.

People forget that Moses' staff had a serpent head and that the priestly cast venerated the serpent.

Regards
DL
greatestiam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2018, 07:13 PM   #36
tnt1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,453
Likes: 666 (398 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greatestiam View Post
So you would agree with the Jewish view of man's elevation in Eden and not our fall the way the Christians view it. Good. That is the intelligent view.

Regards
DL
Yes exactly. I consider myself Jewish more so than anything else btw. But yes this 'creator' or 'ori' or originator' if you prefer was obviously only interested in a dumbed down idiot capable of being an obedient slave and long story short I think one of the fallen 'watchers' or one of the 'first man' that was both male and female came over to the worker man camp and put things via communications with Eve in both their heads that otherwise would not have been there. Its as if the one that communicated with Eve was trying to help man by elevating them in intelligence just enough to kick them in the ass metaphorically speaking so they could continue the waking process on their own away from the garden. One has to ask was this fallen one of the 200 that came to earth or was this one that was still you know, 'up there' with the "Gods" and was fallen or of the same mindset but they were not on to him to know this. I'm sure they kicked the Adam and Eve out so they would not contaminate further this originator beings plans to keep stupid or semi-intelligent herd animals for slaves or trade maybe. I mean if he had his way we'd still be naked stupid asses never learning anything. One wonders if he even taught them to walk or if they were on all fours.
__________________
Rabbit Hole
tnt1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2018, 10:46 PM   #37
itsnotallrightjack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: England
Posts: 642
Likes: 443 (259 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinfoil hat View Post
Surely God would create things that didn't need to eat anything to survive.
Why make a world full of things getting brutally murdered every day by the hundreds of millions when you don't have to cos you're omnipotent?
Yeahhhhhh...this is highly illogical! I'm an atheist.
__________________
Imagination... its limits are only those of the mind itself.

It may be said with a degree of assurance that not everything that meets the eye is as it appears.


Rod Serling.
itsnotallrightjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2018, 04:47 PM   #38
greatestiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,441
Likes: 237 (200 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnt1 View Post
Yes exactly. I consider myself Jewish more so than anything else btw. But yes this 'creator' or 'ori' or originator' if you prefer was obviously only interested in a dumbed down idiot capable of being an obedient slave and long story short I think one of the fallen 'watchers' or one of the 'first man' that was both male and female came over to the worker man camp and put things via communications with Eve in both their heads that otherwise would not have been there. Its as if the one that communicated with Eve was trying to help man by elevating them in intelligence just enough to kick them in the ass metaphorically speaking so they could continue the waking process on their own away from the garden. One has to ask was this fallen one of the 200 that came to earth or was this one that was still you know, 'up there' with the "Gods" and was fallen or of the same mindset but they were not on to him to know this. I'm sure they kicked the Adam and Eve out so they would not contaminate further this originator beings plans to keep stupid or semi-intelligent herd animals for slaves or trade maybe. I mean if he had his way we'd still be naked stupid asses never learning anything. One wonders if he even taught them to walk or if they were on all fours.
I hear you and have no argument against what you put.

Thank all the gods that Eve ate.

Regards
DL
greatestiam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2018, 04:50 PM   #39
ink
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 603
Likes: 280 (197 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greatestiam View Post
Is the ongoing punishment of Adam and Eve justifiable?
Yes it is.
ink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2018, 04:51 PM   #40
greatestiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,441
Likes: 237 (200 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by itsnotallrightjack View Post
Yeahhhhhh...this is highly illogical! I'm an atheist.
Quite possibly, to believers.

If you believe in nature and evolution, you have to recognize that life feeds on death and that without all the death, we would not be the species we are.

Regards
DL
greatestiam is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:57 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.