Science sez that you CAN apply the rules learned with inanimate objects to animate creatures.
Francis Crick's last book is titled "The Astonishing Hypothesis," and that hypothesis is that the inanimate rules DO APPLY to the brain and all that goes in in it. He was the main ring leader of the group I hung out with at UCSD. They all agree on this.
Hard-core science is looking at this brain situation as being natural, and that it is a very complicated mechanism, and that it is EVEN somewhat explainable.
Hard core science is very well lined up with the Bible and PFAL in looking at the human brain/mind as being natural and not supernatural, as being mortal, and as having no preeminence above the beasts.
Another line-up is both see man's opinion of the glory of his own consciousness as a giant confabulation. This is still developing in Neuroscience, but confabulation is a central player without doubt.
I watched a few videos on YouTube on determinism. From what I can see you've spent the last 30+ pages rewarming everything that's already been stated. What's new in your theory?
This whole topic to me seems to be brought up as the last sentence says as an excuse not to hold someone morally responsible for their actions.
In other words for the purpose of whitewashing. Whitewashing the history of the Way. Whitewashing VPs image and class.
Convince me I’m wrong.
great point...got me thinking about another aspect...besides the wierwille-fans who like to defend him to the hilt - I have thought about what went on in the mind of wierwille...I figured he had a seared conscience to behave the way he did...but for him to push fear of the devil so much - I wonder if he was afraid his reckless living would catch up with him somehow - whether by a victim coming forward, the law, God, or devil spirits.
why was wierwille so big on fearmongering over the devil and his troops?
In my opinion, some of what drove it was his desire - as cult-leader - to manipulate and control his followers.
That got me to thinking – did he really believe all the stuff he said – about anything?
(*Check out a couple of excerpts I have below that get into perception)
Often perception equals reality. Mental health experts have said we misjudge how intensely convincing some dissociative practices and misunderstandings can seem.
I’ve questioned if part of wierwille’s interest with devil spirits was an awareness he was unable to resist the devil’s schemes. Considering his bad behavior that was well-known by way corps – maybe he realized his defenses were already compromised. A person who lives a life of crime and deceit is always looking over his shoulder. Is it possible that even if a person has a seared conscience they still might to worry or think about the possibility that something bad might happen, that someone – mortal or…supernatural will try to cause harm?
In Genesis 4: 6 & 7 we read of God talking to Cain. Cain was struggling with his conscience – the internal battle was evident on his face:
Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” Genesis 4: 6 & 7
I’ve heard Christian counselor Jay Adams abstract an idea from that passage – do good and you’ll feel good.
Maybe wierwille's conscience didn't bother him - but you know he had to try and make sense of the dirty looks he might get...the bad vibes from some...his victim's emotional meltdown.... how did his mind deal with criticism? how often did he have to reinforce his ivory tower?
Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D., holds doctorates in English and Psychology – he said there’s 4 chief methods for rationalizing—or even “moralizing”—our immoral behavior:
1. Reinterpreting Culpable Conduct
2. Obscuring Personal Agency
3. Disregarding or Distorting the Consequences of Immoral Action
4. Blaming and Dehumanizing the Victims of Evil Behavior
I know the Bible indicates a seared conscience does not function properly. But still there are other aspects of the mind that must try to make sense of what happens and why as a form of self-defense…maybe that’s the impetus for rationalizing bad behavior and being vigilant for some danger or harm that one suspects or fears they may encounter – even if they’re not sure why they feel that way.
I heard a preacher say one of the best ways to prepare for spiritual battles is to live an upright morally sound life. See also Romans 12 , Ephesians 6
~ ~ ~ ~
*Perception:
Perception within psychology is not something we can measure directly, and it is a complex phenomenon. We may never know for sure the answers to these questions. However, as we evolve and learn more about our abilities and as science continues to develop, we are moving closer to a much deeper level of understanding.
As a psychiatrist, I routinely hear about all sorts of unusual perceptual experiences, and not just from people who are psychotic. A wide variety of abnormal conditions as well as a great many normal but misinterpreted phenomena can cause distorted perceptions.
And yet we find our own subjective perceptions so persuasive that we are more willing to doubt the laws of physics than to doubt our own minds. We can’t help assuming that perception equals reality. People underestimate the capacity of our brains to create their own convincing realities. They underestimate how powerfully realistic some dissociative experiences, hallucinations, and other well-recognized mental/neural misperceptions can seem.
You could say that one major role of a psychiatrist is to persuade people to be skeptical about their own beliefs—that is, to critically examine the evidence for their assumptions and to not automatically believe their own thoughts and perceptions.
Perception and intuition:
We experience the world through our senses. Even though it's often unreliable, subjective perception is a crucial source of data about the world. Indeed, it is the source of our data about the world. Even when we practice science, we are still obtaining data through our senses. Science is just a method to minimize the distorting effects of our perceptions and intuitions and to approximate a more objective view of reality (as the philosopher Thomas Nagel put it: “the view from nowhere”
Science sez that you CAN apply the rules learned with inanimate objects to animate creatures.
Oh, really?!
So, like a rock, a person doesn't need food or water, right? Like a rock a person has no feelings, right? Like a rock, a person has no ability to worship God, right?
As you can see, they're two different things.
7 hours ago, Mike said:
Francis Crick's last book is titled "The Astonishing Hypothesis," and that hypothesis is that the inanimate rules DO APPLY to the brain and all that goes in in it. He was the main ring leader of the group I hung out with at UCSD. They all agree on this.
So? They wouldn't be the first doctors to get it wrong. Ever hear of thalidomide?
7 hours ago, Mike said:
Hard-core science is looking at this brain situation as being natural, and that it is a very complicated mechanism, and that it is EVEN somewhat explainable.
Hard core science also denies the existence of God. Are they right?
7 hours ago, Mike said:
Hard core science is very well lined up with the Bible and PFAL in looking at the human brain/mind as being natural and not supernatural, as being mortal, and as having no preeminence above the beasts.
Really?! Then why don't the beasts drive cars and fly airplanes? Even natural men apparently have something that just a little more than the garden variety primate.
7 hours ago, Mike said:
Another line-up is both see man's opinion of the glory of his own consciousness as a giant confabulation. This is still developing in Neuroscience, but confabulation is a central player without doubt.
So, of all the creature on Earth, why did God pick man? If he wanted to God could have done the same thing with porpoises, chimpanzees, or yetis. Why man?
Hard-core science is looking at this brain situation as being natural, and that it is a very complicated mechanism, and that it is EVEN somewhat explainable.
Ha ! So now you’re the spokesperson for hard core science? Is this one of your positive affirmations in your deluded little world?
7 hours ago, Mike said:
Hard core science is very well lined up with the Bible and PFAL in looking at the human brain/mind as being natural and not supernatural, as being mortal, and as having no preeminence above the beasts.
First off – PFAL does not line up with the Bible
Second – Genesis says humankind was made in the image and likeness of God
Third – humankind was to rule over the creation see Genesis 1:26 - 30
Fourth - "and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." Ecclesiastes 12:7
I watched a few videos on YouTube on determinism. From what I can see you've spent the last 30+ pages rewarming everything that's already been stated. What's new in your theory?
The definition of free will is changed in my hypothesis.
The videos you watched refer to classical free will, also called Libertarian, also called Contra-causal. The debate of this free will and determinism has gone back and forth for over 2,000 years, but it really picked up steam when Physics was invented.
The reason this debate is so tough is because Libertarian Free Will is defined in such a way that it is almost 100% opposite determinism. It's like an anti-determinism idea, or an idea that demands a waiver from determinism.
It never gets resolved, so I gave up on it, and decided to start all over. Dennett gave me some ideas.
Libertarian Free Will (LibFW) is anti-determinism. I invented one that is pro-determinism.
THAT is what is new in my hypothesis.
It is a Deterministic Hypothesis for Free Will.
All other theories or ideas of free will are IN-DETERMINISTIC, or seek to dodge or nullify determinism.
If you can find another Deterministic set of ideas out there, then I am very interested in contacting them. I have the only one I know of. Dennett has some, but in writing he is unclear about his stand WITH determinism. It comes out in his videos, though, quite clearly.
I thought that Dennett was going to give me one, and he came close, and I got good hints from him.
I agree. I'm waiting for Mike to tie this to the ministry and Saint Vic.
No, but I will tie it to to the Facebook groups where I have spent many hours debating free will.
They are heavily populated with people that argue precisely that: no blame and no credit.
Many of them are young, European political activists and they are grinding an axe at the world's judicial systems. Some of them are just misfits and trying to justify their lives of failure. Very bitter people, and full of glee to find a website that promotes the idea that there is no free will.
Their motives in debating there is no free will are easy to see, and I find it disgusting.
I do believe in a type of free will where we are responsible for our behavior, and we can TRY to hold others to be similarly responsible.
The definition of free will is changed in my hypothesis.
The videos you watched refer to classical free will, also called Libertarian, also called Contra-causal.
And you know which videos I watched, how?
2 minutes ago, Mike said:
The debate of this free will and determinism has gone back and forth for over 2,000 years, but it really picked up steam when Physics was invented.
Odd, they tied free will in with physics, too.
2 minutes ago, Mike said:
The reason this debate is so tough is because Libertarian Free Will is defined in such a way that it is almost 100% opposite determinism. It's like an anti-determinism idea, or an idea that demands a waiver from determinism.
It never gets resolved, so I gave up on it, and decided to start all over. Dennett gave me some ideas.
Sounds more like you couldn't defeat the concept of free will, so you decided to cheat. Change the definition.
2 minutes ago, Mike said:
Libertarian Free Will (LibFW) is anti-determinism. I invented one that is pro-determinism.
THAT is what is new in my hypothesis.
It is a Deterministic Hypothesis for Free Will.
Just like they did in the videos.
2 minutes ago, Mike said:
All other theories or ideas of free will are IN-DETERMINISTIC, or seek to dodge or nullify determinism.
Didn't see any of that.
2 minutes ago, Mike said:
If you can find another Deterministic set of ideas out there, then I am very interested in contacting them. I have the only one I know of. Dennett has some, but in writing he is unclear about his stand WITH determinism. It comes out in his videos, though, quite clearly.
Go to YouTube and search for determinism.
2 minutes ago, Mike said:
I thought that Dennett was going to give me one, and he came close, and I got good hints from him.
In your opinion, as I don't know the hints I don't know if they were good or bad.
As I said, the videos I watched had the same information and hypothesis you've been spiting for over 30 pages. As far as I can see you've offered nothing new.
Does the confabulation problem explain why Victor couldn't keep his snow storm stories straight?
If victor rejected the advice from the lighting expert during the filming of PFLAP, and his free will rejection of sound mind advice caused eyeball cancer, and God idiomatically permitted the cancer because of victor's free will choice to reject God's angel, was the cancer determined by victor's free will? Or by God's permission?
Either victor chose the cancer by his own free will, or it was determined by his free will choice and permitted by God's idiom. Can both be true?
No, but I will tie it to to the Facebook groups where I have spent many hours debating free will.
They are heavily populated with people that argue precisely that: no blame and no credit.
Many of them are young, European political activists and they are grinding an axe at the world's judicial systems. Some of them are just misfits and trying to justify their lives of failure. Very bitter people, and full of glee to find a website that promotes the idea that there is no free will.
Their motives in debating there is no free will are easy to see, and I find it disgusting.
I do believe in a type of free will where we are responsible for our behavior, and we can TRY to hold others to be similarly responsible.
I'm just curious what motivates someone to hang out in groups of young folk and invoke the names and work of others. It sounds familiar somehow, as if I've heard it before.
I watched a few videos on YouTube on determinism. From what I can see you've spent the last 30+ pages rewarming everything that's already been stated. What's new in your theory?
What the shonta? You mean to tell me that Mike has been working this topic shince 1966 and all he is doing is rehashing a few youtube clips? Say it aint so....I though Mike was presenting ground breaking..no atom smashing research that hadn't been known since the enlightenment or the first centurry....holy shonta...maybe this information has never been known and Mike put it all together checked into a red roof inn eating nothing but a diet of grapes....I mean youtube isn't exactly a neuroscience lab so what in the shonta are they doing discussing such highly advance neuroscience! Well....you know certain gene-yuses just aren't appreciated in their own time...it's the rule of bullshonta...I mean the entire concept of mike presenting anything of value after he published his book on GSC....so much lost credibility...Ive gotta go...damn devil is trying to whisper in my ear...oh...nm thats my wife yelling from downstairs to come eat breakfast..my bad...don't tell her I called her the debil....since mike was the waterboy of his so informal it doesn't officially exist neuroscience group I thought I would leave you with some inspiration about the debil
I'm just curious what motivates someone to hang out in groups of young folk and invoke the names and work of others. It sounds familiar somehow, as if I've heard it before.
Well....there was a man in ohio...that man preached to the trees...there was a man in ohio unlike anyother man...preaching to the trees....there was a man...who checked into a hotel on nothing but a diet of grapes....I dunno...Ive heard it before too but can't really put it all together......
I'm just curious what motivates someone to hang out in groups of young folk and invoke the names and work of others. It sounds familiar somehow, as if I've heard it before.
Did you purposely miss the part where I said their attitudes of great irresponsibility disgust me? Or was that just a sloppy oversight on your part?
Some of the websites that promote the idea of there being no free will tend to attract irresponsible people who seek justification for their behavior.
They are heavily populated with people that argue precisely that: no blame and no credit.
The posters that focus on the "no credit" part are often Communists.
Many of them are young, European political activists and they are grinding an axe at the world's judicial systems. Some of them are just misfits and trying to justify their lives of failure. Very bitter people, and full of glee to find a website that promotes the idea that there is no free will.
Their motives in debating there is no free will are easy to see, and I find it disgusting.
I do believe in a type of free will
where we are responsible for our behavior,
and we can TRY to hold others
to be similarly responsible.
Is this where we use regular math logic for ourselves but fuzzy logic for certain others?
I see great clarity (regular math?) when I apply Romans 7 to my life, and hold myself responsible for my actions.
Things get real fuzzy trying to hold others responsible, but it can be done in an approximate sense. The judicial systems of the world are pretty clumsy, but it's better to have them than to live in anarchy.
Did you purposely miss the part where I said their attitudes of great irresponsibility disgust me? Or was that just a sloppy oversight on your part?
Some of the websites that promote the idea of there being no free will tend to attract irresponsible people who seek justification for their behavior.
They are heavily populated with people that argue precisely that: no blame and no credit.
The posters that focus on the "no credit" part are often Communists.
Many of them are young, European political activists and they are grinding an axe at the world's judicial systems. Some of them are just misfits and trying to justify their lives of failure. Very bitter people, and full of glee to find a website that promotes the idea that there is no free will.
Their motives in debating there is no free will are easy to see, and I find it disgusting.
I do believe in a type of free will
where we are responsible for our behavior,
and we can TRY to hold others
to be similarly responsible.
Why on earth are you so judgemental of young people. I ran a young adult fellowship at HQ for several years and have always had a natural inclination to raising up youthful men and women into adults. Your really showing your fangs here. First off you can't bs Young people...they're tired of it and they are likely calling bullshonta on your pseudo-neuroscience bullshonta. If u can muster the courage, which I doubt, to be honest and forthright then u may just find they are frustrated trying to find their way through life and they are sick of condescending old people and their disrespectful attitudes.
You aren't the type to gain their respect and get in the trenches and get in their level...which is probably a higher level than your level...but if you could you would find hungry minds and a youthful zeal that just needs some love and empathy. With your attitude you aren't worthy of their respect.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
330
267
271
186
Popular Days
Nov 12
118
Nov 13
107
Nov 20
105
Nov 9
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 330 posts
T-Bone 267 posts
OldSkool 271 posts
Nathan_Jr 186 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2022
118 posts
Nov 13 2022
107 posts
Nov 20 2022
105 posts
Nov 9 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I do want to address this Mike. You constantly come at me like I have forgotten, or have been talked out of the truth of wierwille, or that I just don't understand where you are coming from. Personall
waysider
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collecte
Charity
I agree with So_Crates when he said "Here's a wild idea: why don't YOU become meek and I'll tell you about all the fruit in my life since I stopped making PLAF the center of my life." There have
Posted Images
So_crates
I watched a few videos on YouTube on determinism. From what I can see you've spent the last 30+ pages rewarming everything that's already been stated. What's new in your theory?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I agree. I'm waiting for Mike to tie this to the ministry and Saint Vic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
great point...got me thinking about another aspect...besides the wierwille-fans who like to defend him to the hilt - I have thought about what went on in the mind of wierwille...I figured he had a seared conscience to behave the way he did...but for him to push fear of the devil so much - I wonder if he was afraid his reckless living would catch up with him somehow - whether by a victim coming forward, the law, God, or devil spirits.
why was wierwille so big on fearmongering over the devil and his troops?
In my opinion, some of what drove it was his desire - as cult-leader - to manipulate and control his followers.
That got me to thinking – did he really believe all the stuff he said – about anything?
(*Check out a couple of excerpts I have below that get into perception)
Often perception equals reality. Mental health experts have said we misjudge how intensely convincing some dissociative practices and misunderstandings can seem.
I’ve questioned if part of wierwille’s interest with devil spirits was an awareness he was unable to resist the devil’s schemes. Considering his bad behavior that was well-known by way corps – maybe he realized his defenses were already compromised. A person who lives a life of crime and deceit is always looking over his shoulder. Is it possible that even if a person has a seared conscience they still might to worry or think about the possibility that something bad might happen, that someone – mortal or…supernatural will try to cause harm?
In Genesis 4: 6 & 7 we read of God talking to Cain. Cain was struggling with his conscience – the internal battle was evident on his face:
Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” Genesis 4: 6 & 7
I’ve heard Christian counselor Jay Adams abstract an idea from that passage – do good and you’ll feel good.
Maybe wierwille's conscience didn't bother him - but you know he had to try and make sense of the dirty looks he might get...the bad vibes from some...his victim's emotional meltdown.... how did his mind deal with criticism? how often did he have to reinforce his ivory tower?
Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D., holds doctorates in English and Psychology – he said there’s 4 chief methods for rationalizing—or even “moralizing”—our immoral behavior:
1. Reinterpreting Culpable Conduct
2. Obscuring Personal Agency
3. Disregarding or Distorting the Consequences of Immoral Action
4. Blaming and Dehumanizing the Victims of Evil Behavior
from: Psychology Today: 4 ways You Rationalize When You Act Against Your Conscience
I know the Bible indicates a seared conscience does not function properly. But still there are other aspects of the mind that must try to make sense of what happens and why as a form of self-defense…maybe that’s the impetus for rationalizing bad behavior and being vigilant for some danger or harm that one suspects or fears they may encounter – even if they’re not sure why they feel that way.
I heard a preacher say one of the best ways to prepare for spiritual battles is to live an upright morally sound life. See also Romans 12 , Ephesians 6
~ ~ ~ ~
*Perception:
Perception within psychology is not something we can measure directly, and it is a complex phenomenon. We may never know for sure the answers to these questions. However, as we evolve and learn more about our abilities and as science continues to develop, we are moving closer to a much deeper level of understanding.
From: https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Perception-in-Psychology
~ ~ ~ ~
As a psychiatrist, I routinely hear about all sorts of unusual perceptual experiences, and not just from people who are psychotic. A wide variety of abnormal conditions as well as a great many normal but misinterpreted phenomena can cause distorted perceptions.
And yet we find our own subjective perceptions so persuasive that we are more willing to doubt the laws of physics than to doubt our own minds. We can’t help assuming that perception equals reality. People underestimate the capacity of our brains to create their own convincing realities. They underestimate how powerfully realistic some dissociative experiences, hallucinations, and other well-recognized mental/neural misperceptions can seem.
You could say that one major role of a psychiatrist is to persuade people to be skeptical about their own beliefs—that is, to critically examine the evidence for their assumptions and to not automatically believe their own thoughts and perceptions.
Perception and intuition:
We experience the world through our senses. Even though it's often unreliable, subjective perception is a crucial source of data about the world. Indeed, it is the source of our data about the world. Even when we practice science, we are still obtaining data through our senses. Science is just a method to minimize the distorting effects of our perceptions and intuitions and to approximate a more objective view of reality (as the philosopher Thomas Nagel put it: “the view from nowhere”
From: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-purpose/202008/how-do-we-know-what-is-real
Edited by T-Bonetypos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Oh, really?!
So, like a rock, a person doesn't need food or water, right? Like a rock a person has no feelings, right? Like a rock, a person has no ability to worship God, right?
As you can see, they're two different things.
So? They wouldn't be the first doctors to get it wrong. Ever hear of thalidomide?
Hard core science also denies the existence of God. Are they right?
Really?! Then why don't the beasts drive cars and fly airplanes? Even natural men apparently have something that just a little more than the garden variety primate.
So, of all the creature on Earth, why did God pick man? If he wanted to God could have done the same thing with porpoises, chimpanzees, or yetis. Why man?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Ha ! So now you’re the spokesperson for hard core science? Is this one of your positive affirmations in your deluded little world?
First off – PFAL does not line up with the Bible
Second – Genesis says humankind was made in the image and likeness of God
Third – humankind was to rule over the creation see Genesis 1:26 - 30
Fourth - "and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." Ecclesiastes 12:7
Edited by T-Bonetypos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The definition of free will is changed in my hypothesis.
The videos you watched refer to classical free will, also called Libertarian, also called Contra-causal. The debate of this free will and determinism has gone back and forth for over 2,000 years, but it really picked up steam when Physics was invented.
The reason this debate is so tough is because Libertarian Free Will is defined in such a way that it is almost 100% opposite determinism. It's like an anti-determinism idea, or an idea that demands a waiver from determinism.
It never gets resolved, so I gave up on it, and decided to start all over. Dennett gave me some ideas.
Libertarian Free Will (LibFW) is anti-determinism. I invented one that is pro-determinism.
THAT is what is new in my hypothesis.
It is a Deterministic Hypothesis for Free Will.
All other theories or ideas of free will are IN-DETERMINISTIC, or seek to dodge or nullify determinism.
If you can find another Deterministic set of ideas out there, then I am very interested in contacting them. I have the only one I know of. Dennett has some, but in writing he is unclear about his stand WITH determinism. It comes out in his videos, though, quite clearly.
I thought that Dennett was going to give me one, and he came close, and I got good hints from him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike changes more than the liquid metal dude in the Terminator movie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, but I will tie it to to the Facebook groups where I have spent many hours debating free will.
They are heavily populated with people that argue precisely that: no blame and no credit.
Many of them are young, European political activists and they are grinding an axe at the world's judicial systems. Some of them are just misfits and trying to justify their lives of failure. Very bitter people, and full of glee to find a website that promotes the idea that there is no free will.
Their motives in debating there is no free will are easy to see, and I find it disgusting.
I do believe in a type of free will where we are responsible for our behavior, and we can TRY to hold others to be similarly responsible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And you know which videos I watched, how?
Odd, they tied free will in with physics, too.
Sounds more like you couldn't defeat the concept of free will, so you decided to cheat. Change the definition.
Just like they did in the videos.
Didn't see any of that.
Go to YouTube and search for determinism.
In your opinion, as I don't know the hints I don't know if they were good or bad.
As I said, the videos I watched had the same information and hypothesis you've been spiting for over 30 pages. As far as I can see you've offered nothing new.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
All this hardcore science sounds very top-down.
Does the confabulation problem explain why Victor couldn't keep his snow storm stories straight?
If victor rejected the advice from the lighting expert during the filming of PFLAP, and his free will rejection of sound mind advice caused eyeball cancer, and God idiomatically permitted the cancer because of victor's free will choice to reject God's angel, was the cancer determined by victor's free will? Or by God's permission?
Either victor chose the cancer by his own free will, or it was determined by his free will choice and permitted by God's idiom. Can both be true?
Bottom's up! Kuala Lumpur!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Was physics invented or discovered? I guess it depends on your definition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Nah. Nothing that exotic. He was just another liar who couldn't keep the details straight from one lie to the next..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Occam's razor.
60% of the time, it works every time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm just curious what motivates someone to hang out in groups of young folk and invoke the names and work of others. It sounds familiar somehow, as if I've heard it before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
What the shonta? You mean to tell me that Mike has been working this topic shince 1966 and all he is doing is rehashing a few youtube clips? Say it aint so....I though Mike was presenting ground breaking..no atom smashing research that hadn't been known since the enlightenment or the first centurry....holy shonta...maybe this information has never been known and Mike put it all together checked into a red roof inn eating nothing but a diet of grapes....I mean youtube isn't exactly a neuroscience lab so what in the shonta are they doing discussing such highly advance neuroscience! Well....you know certain gene-yuses just aren't appreciated in their own time...it's the rule of bullshonta...I mean the entire concept of mike presenting anything of value after he published his book on GSC....so much lost credibility...Ive gotta go...damn devil is trying to whisper in my ear...oh...nm thats my wife yelling from downstairs to come eat breakfast..my bad...don't tell her I called her the debil....since mike was the waterboy of his so informal it doesn't officially exist neuroscience group I thought I would leave you with some inspiration about the debil
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Well....there was a man in ohio...that man preached to the trees...there was a man in ohio unlike anyother man...preaching to the trees....there was a man...who checked into a hotel on nothing but a diet of grapes....I dunno...Ive heard it before too but can't really put it all together......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You better run from the devil's gun!
Bwahahaha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Did you purposely miss the part where I said their attitudes of great irresponsibility disgust me? Or was that just a sloppy oversight on your part?
Some of the websites that promote the idea of there being no free will tend to attract irresponsible people who seek justification for their behavior.
They are heavily populated with people that argue precisely that: no blame and no credit.
The posters that focus on the "no credit" part are often Communists.
Many of them are young, European political activists and they are grinding an axe at the world's judicial systems. Some of them are just misfits and trying to justify their lives of failure. Very bitter people, and full of glee to find a website that promotes the idea that there is no free will.
Their motives in debating there is no free will are easy to see, and I find it disgusting.
I do believe in a type of free will
where we are responsible for our behavior,
and we can TRY to hold others
to be similarly responsible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Is this where we use regular math logic for ourselves but fuzzy logic for certain others?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I see great clarity (regular math?) when I apply Romans 7 to my life, and hold myself responsible for my actions.
Things get real fuzzy trying to hold others responsible, but it can be done in an approximate sense. The judicial systems of the world are pretty clumsy, but it's better to have them than to live in anarchy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Why on earth are you so judgemental of young people. I ran a young adult fellowship at HQ for several years and have always had a natural inclination to raising up youthful men and women into adults. Your really showing your fangs here. First off you can't bs Young people...they're tired of it and they are likely calling bullshonta on your pseudo-neuroscience bullshonta. If u can muster the courage, which I doubt, to be honest and forthright then u may just find they are frustrated trying to find their way through life and they are sick of condescending old people and their disrespectful attitudes.
You aren't the type to gain their respect and get in the trenches and get in their level...which is probably a higher level than your level...but if you could you would find hungry minds and a youthful zeal that just needs some love and empathy. With your attitude you aren't worthy of their respect.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That’s weird! Different types of free will?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Well likely just different types of shonta...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.