I'd like to point out I didn't say anything that you didn't already say was accurate, and true about yourself. You've stated the implication of my words are what bother you, and I have clarified my meaning and denied that was the implication of my words, nor what I was trying to say.

It's not that I don't care, it's that I have denied, and stated my meaning repeatedly. It does not match up with your additions to what I have said.



Ok. That does allow that there is the possibility of it being known before death.


Right, I agree. I am stating that 100% knowledge is not required for something to be known.


I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not stating that  we have to have everything to be certain. I'm stating just like you that evidence does not need to be complete before knowing something that is certain.

  I'm aware of that belief. We've both agreed that people do believe that.

  Right. Like everything in science is 99% faith. Very little of it, if any is 100% because science can really only show what doesn't work. About the only thing considered 100% are scientific laws. Either way, this is kind of off topic.

If we are accepting that nothing is 100%, then we can't even say that no knowledge exists for God, or that we cannot know. It's just another bit of a statement of faith.

I replied to his post, nothing more. I pointed out an issue, nothing more. You and kat replied multiple times on it. I wouldn't have posted any more on it if you didn't keep bringing it back up. I noticed a logic issue, and addressed it.

Is this what you believe? How are you stating there is no evidence for God? We're talking about evidence, and the possibility of evidence. We don't need to prove something to have evidence for, or against.

I can accept that science will be unable to measure God in scientific terms, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence. For example, if I cannot measure faith, does that mean faith does not exist? Because love cannot be scientifically proven, that we cannot have evidence for love?

I have already spoken on this. The evidence used for an choice does not mean it's not a choice. For example, I don't believe the koran is legitimate, which makes my choice easier not to follow or be with allah. Just because the choice is easy, doesn't change that it is a choice.

Another analogy. You're approached by a homosexual male, and he asks you out for a date. What's your choice? Yes, or no? I believe you were heterosexual Tycho, so that would mean your choice is quite easy. You say no, and perhaps explain why you said no to him.

In other words, just because you do not like guys in that way, you make a choice that was for a reason. Legitimate or not, the reasons do not matter when it comes to it being a choice. A choice does not become not a choice just because some reasons make it more likely you'll choose a response.


I chose to become a follower of God. Why should a non christian want to chose to be a christian, simple answer is because God wants that. God loves you, and He isn't going to stop loving you. Even though you may do things He doesn't like, He still loves you.

We don't need to prove something to have evidence for, or against.

Proof and evidence are intertwined. Having evidence means you have proof.

You can't logically prove something that, by definition, is beyond the rules of logic.

For example, if I cannot measure faith, does that mean faith does not exist?

Actually, faith and love are the results of psychological processes within your brain, which can be further broken down into biological and chemical reactions, all of which can be measured scientifically.

Just to help clarify that, would you say while emotions are definable by scientific analysis and measurement, the concepts of the emotions are not, and thus wouldn't be of scientific relevance?

I'm not sure what you mean by concept of emotion.

Like Love, the concept; true love, and love at first site, rather than that chemical our body releases when all else fails to compel us towards procreating.

That was taken a little out of context. I was using your value of proven, as in something cannot be proven. We can still have evidence without it being proven in that sense. So to be clear, while we are not using science to meaure God, we can still have evidence for God. For example, if the bible is true, then that is evidence for God. It describes God, and actions of God. I'm not aksing you if it's proven, I'm asking you if true, is that evidence for God?

Let's take it a step further. Is there evidence for any historical figures? If you haven't seen them, and no one alive has seen them, is there evidence that a historical figure existed? For example, is there any evidence for Socrates?


So logically speaking, it is illogical to state that one cannot know if evidence exists, since by default, you'd have to see all evidence to state none exist. Logically speaking, that leaves only blind faith allowing that statement. Would you disagree or agree that there is evidence that no evidence exists?


Thats just plain silly. We cant measure love and faith.

Socrates is a fabrication of Plato's imagination :P

I was using your value of proven, as in something cannot be proven.

If something can't be proven, you can't have evidence for it.

For example, if the bible is true, then that is evidence for God. It describes God, and actions of God. I'm not aksing you if it's proven, I'm asking you if true, is that evidence for God?

No, it's a single book with nothing else backing it up, making it impossible to be proven true. It's not evidence for the existence of god anymore than Lord of the Rings is evidence for the existence of Hobbits.

Let's take it a step further. Is there evidence for any historical figures? If you haven't seen them, and no one alive has seen them, is there evidence that a historical figure existed? For example, is there any evidence for Socrates?

There are historical records from multiple different sources that corroborate each other and are independently confirmed by archeological research.

So logically speaking, it is illogical to state that one cannot know if evidence exists, since by default, you'd have to see all evidence to state none exist.

No, I'm saying it is logically impossible for there to be evidence. There cannot be evidence of supernatural events, otherwise you could measure it, and they would simply be natural events.

Religious is a matter of faith, not evidence. You should know that. It's always been a matter of faith.

Thats just plain silly. We cant measure love and faith.

Everything you think, everything you feel, is the result of a psychological process occurring within your brain. And that is the result of electrical and chemical reactions within your brain. These can be measured. What do you think neuroscience is?

This is getting off the topic of Hell.  We may want to port this over to another thread.  I can create one if no one feels we have an appropriate one already.

Yes, but you feel it's still fine to keep using the same wording, when a more clear wording we both agree on is no more work for you.  If you continue to use the original wording once you know that it sounds like something other than you mean to me (and presumably to others), that sort of comes off as either not caring how others take it (or, I suppose, that you do care and actually want to offend them for some reason, but I don't think that's what's happening).

For example, say I like to swear.  I don't mean it to be offensive, it's my intent, but I just drop the F-bomb every other word.  Just sort of my style.  If I'm hanging out with you and your kids, and you say "Tycho, it'd be great if you could just hold back on the swearing while my kids are around.  That kind of language is a bit offensive to us."  I have to choices.  I can say "Oh?  Okay.  I didn't mean any offense by it, and I'll not swear around you and your kids."  OR I can say "F*** that!  That's the F****** dumbest thing F****** ever!  I didn't mean to F******* offend you, so you need to just get F****** over it!"

But regardless, it seems like you're not going to change.  So I'll take the discussion in a new direction, to hopefully at least make you understand where I'm coming from.  You've equated unintended consequences of decisions, with the decisions themselves.  Thus, since my decision not to follow christianty will result, in your view, me not being with God, you feel it's okay to say I choose not to be with God.  You agree that my intent is not to avoid being with God, but since it's a consequence, you feel it's same as the choice itself.  Fair enough.  Lets see where that leads us.

God had made a choice to give people free will.  As a consequence of that, people have ended up sinning.  Thus, by your view, it should be accurate to say that God choose for people to sin.  For every murder, it would be accurate to say God chose for that murder to happen.  Also as a result of God's decision, people go to hell, and thus aren't with God.  So, by your way of using "choice," it would be accurate to say that people end up in hell because God decides not to be with them.

Another analogy would be someone choosing to send their kids to school in the morning, and then some accident happening at the school that resulted in the kids dying.  If they had chosen not to send their kids to school that particular day, the kids would have lived, but there was no way to know that was going to happen.  Still, according to your view of things, unintended consequences are the same as the choice itself, so it would be okay to say that the person had chosen for their kids to die.

But let's take it back toward the God angle.  Would you agree that for every sin that's ever happened, God has chosen for it to happen?


I think the trouble with this whole discussion is that each of us seem to be using different terms.  I would say "believe" where you would say "know" and falkus seems to be saying something different still.  I would say we probably can't "know" what happens after death, though we can gather enough information to make a decent hypothesis.  This would be something we would "believe" rather than "know."  Falkus would probably call it something different.


Okay.  And I think Falkus is saying, that because he can't be 100% certain, he's going to hold off on making a decision on it until he has 100% certainty.  Might be a bad call on his part, but it doesn't seem to be as illogical as you seem to be implying.


You're missing the point yet again.  Yes, your choice to follow allah or not is a choice.  Following is an action.  What you believe influences your choice, in this case not believing in allah makes it easy for you to decide not to follow him.  But you didn't choose not to believe.  What you chose was not to follow based on your belief that already existed.  Do you see the difference?  You don't choose not to believe in Allah.  You simply don't believe in Him because of all the things you've seen, the way you think, etc.  You can suddenly start believing that Allah is real at will.  You could choose to start following allah, even if you don't believe He is real, but that's not the same thing.  Does that make sense?


Yes, but none of that was an issue of belief.  In your analogy, my choice was how to answer.  Answering is an action, not a belief.  We choose our actions, we don't choose our beliefs.



Okay, but if the non-christian doesn't believe all that, why should they follow God?  You believe it's wrong to follow Allah.  A Muslim believes it's right to follow Allah, and will give you a list of benefits you would get from following Allah, just as you've given a list of reasons for following God.  If someone doesn't believe the items on the list are real, they're not going to choose to act in such a way to get them.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Logic states if there is evidence, then it can be proven.

No? How can you state if something written is true, it cannot be evidence? Truth is not evidence for? That seems an illogical statement. Please note that the bible is made up of many books, by many authors, and note that there are additional non biblical sources that will back up plenty of the bible. I know you know this, but I wanted to repeat it for those who may be reading along.

I do want to ask to be clear, that if something is true is written down by only one source, with no corroborating evidence, are you stating that it cannot be evidence?


I didn't ask if there is multiple sources for historical figures. I think you avoided answering the question I asked because to answer it truthfuly would mean that written information is evidence. Just as information about socrates is evidence, so is the bible, if true is evidence.

I know what you're saying. Your belief is there cannot be evidence for God because God cannot be measured. I think my points are still standing. You're even editing out my questions and not answering them I can only assume because they are problematic to your position.

Ok, how much for a love effect for a spouse of ten years? Personally, I think you don't know. This is just my opinion, but I feel it's easy for you to make this up rather than just say that you can have evidence for.

Ok, how much for a love effect for a spouse of ten years? Personally, I think you don't know. This is just my opinion, but I feel it's easy for you to make this up rather than just say that you can have evidence for.

And you have the nerve to accuse me of evading questions.

We're through here.

I asked you a question multiple times, and you have avoided it, and have taken my posts out of context leaving out questions so you don't respond to them.

So yes, I am stating you're avoiding questions. I don't think it unreasonable to point out that the questions are going unanswered. Why do you feel it unreasonable to point that out?

I don't get it. Why does it bother you that a christian states hell is only for people who don't follow/be with God? I don't see how that is unclear like you state? I do not see how that is phrased improperly for any person. Everyone here knows I'm christian, and what christian ideas of hell mean. Why would apply non christian meaning to a christian idea?


Tycho, did you actually have a meaning of the phrase that was what I intended?

I look at the source, and go their standard, not my own. You don't expect a 5 year to act like an adult. You don't expect an animal to act civil. I personally deal with a number of people who swear all day. Sometimes they correct themselves around me, and when they don't, I still maintain a conversation with them.

When a LDS talks about prayer, and their prophet. I don't start telling them they are bad, and shouldn't pray for me until they use my term and meaning of prayer to God. You look at the source, and their intent. I don't feel bad when a person who is muslim speaks of prayer to allah. You look at the source.

Here's where we disagree. I am stating you are choosing not to be with God. You've agreed that is factual and true. The only thing I've equated to be the same are following/desiring to be with. Choices lead to consequences which may be undesired.

Remember the example of the criminal who wanted fast easy money. He wanted the money, but did not want jail. I've said it before, and will say it again. Choice and consequence do not both have to be desired. You can desire a choice, but completely oppose the consequence.

No, I disagree. That's not my view. God chose free will, but He still wants people to chose what is good. He knows they won't always, but God has planned to deal with that as well. For us, God prepared to take the punishment for our actions. Literally paying the price for all of our sins. Jesus went to the cross.

It's not that God doesn't want to be with His people, but God does allow for people to choose not to be with Him.


No, I wouldn't agree.


And that's why we ask questions, and probe further. To find out where we think, challenge it, and ask more details. We sometimes place dilemmas we think are there with the issue. Falkus may have stepped out of this conversation at this point according to his last post, so maybe he won't clarify his thoughts further.


It was just addressing his post, nothing more, nothing less. Even knowing that there might be 20 posts after the fact to discuss logic, or illogic of the point, I think it's fair to say it's no more or less illogical to address a point then it is for you or me to address the counter point.


That's just silly. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm missing the point. If disagreement meant missing the point, then you would be missing the point quite a lot. It's a silly thing to say.

  Yes, it makes sense. And I still feel that choice is choice, regardless of how easy it comes to you because of your beliefs.


And I think at this point that analogy was pretty clear beliefs are not important to making a choice. Our beliefs give us reasons for our choice, but that doesn't alter that we are making a choice.



Right, I agree. Your choice is your choice. You may feel your beliefs are very valid, and give you many reasons to make that choice. I feel my reasons are valid to, and help me make my choice.

It's clear my choice is to follow God, while your choice is not to follow God. Your choice is to follow your own understanding of the situation. My choice is not to follow your understanding of the situation.

Whatever you choose is your choice.

Forgive me for being incredulous about this, when you claim that I'm evading the question by pointing out the difference between historical information that's corroborated, and historical information that isn't.

To be clear, I'm stating you are avoiding the question by not answering multiple questions. Also I'm speaking about removing questions from quotes of what I said, then you don't answer them.

Falkus I did ask questions that you did not answer. I pointed that out, nothing more. I do not see a need to find that incredulous. Look at this from my perspective, I wrote some questions down, you removed them when you quoted the other sentences from me. I pointed that out they were removed, and others went unanswered.

What should I have done when the questions aren't being answered? Was it wrong for me to point out they were missed? Was I asking too many questions? From my perspective, I do not understand why it is wrong to say you didn't answer questions when you didn't answer questions.

I know!  ;)  That's why I keep trying to explain it. ;)


If you word it that way, it doesn't bother me all that much.  The original wording wasn't "hell is for those who don't follow God."  That I would have no problem with.  The wording you used was "hell is for people who choose not to be with God."  That's what bothers.  That specific choice of words.  The "choose not to be with God" is the part that irks me.  The reason it bothers me, is that it implies intent--ie, it implies that I don't want to be with God.  I'll show you why that's the case later down the page.


None of that is what bothers me, TitL.  Let me be very clear.  I don't mind that you think I'm going to hell.  I don't mind that you say I'm going to end up in hell.  I don't mind if you say I'm going to hell because I choose not to follow God (though I think it'd be better if you said I'm going to hell because I don't believe in God).  None of that is what bothers me.  It also doesn't bother me that you've used the word "choice."  I agree that choices are being made.  That isn't what bothers me.  What does bother me is the specific phrasing, which labels the choice as "being with God" or not.  The reason that particular phrasing bothers me is that it implies that my objective/intent is to not be with God, and that's not accurate.  The way you first phrased your statement made it sound like I don't want to be with God (or, more to the point, that I want to not be with God).  That is not what I want, though.  It is not my intent.  It's not my goal or objective.  I accept that you think it is a consequence of my decision not to follow God.  I don't mind if you say that as a consequence of my choice not to follow God I will not be with God.  What I don't like is when you equate the consequence with the choice itself, because you imply intent or motive that isn't there.  If that intent isn't there, it's inaccurate to use a phrasing that implies that it is.  Again, I'll show why that implication matters further down the page.


I'm not sure what you're asking here.  Are you asking for how I would prefer you to say it?  Or are you asking if I know what you intended to mean?  If the former, I would prefer if you said "hell is for people who don't believe in God," or "hell is for people who choose not to follow God."  If you're asking if I know what you intended to mean, I'm not 100% certain.  I hope that you just meant hell is for people who don't follow God, but I'm not sure if you actually meant also that people who don't follow God want not to be with God.  That last part is what I object to, and want to make sure you don't mean it, or imply it when you make your statement.


Good, we're on the same page then.  What matters is intent, right?  If you say I'm going to hell because I've decided not to follow God, I can look at the source, and be okay with that.  I know that's what you believe, and you're not trying to say I've done anything I haven't.  However, if you say that I choose not to be with God, then it seems like you're intent is to speak about my motivations/goals/intentions.  You're not just talking about your beliefs about hell anymore, but now saying something about me and my aims.  The impression I get, is that you're not trying to help me anymore, but that you're trying to paint me as a bad guy.  Your intent doesn't seem friendly anymore.  It's one thing if we disagree about heaven, hell, and the like.  That's not offensive.  It's when we disagree about me that it gets a bit bothersome.  When you make statements that imply something untrue about my goals or intentions, then I get offended.


No, I haven't!  I'll make it very, very clear:  I think that is NOT factual, and NOT true.  I have chosen not to follow God.  I accept that you think that as a consequence of that decision, I will not be with God.  But I have NOT chosen not to be with God.  If you are right, and I end up in hell because I didn't follow God, that will be and unintended consequence of my decision.  It will be something that I didn't think would happen.


Yes!  You've equated following to desiring to be with.  Those are not the same thing!  It is possible to follow God if you don't want to be with Him, and it's possible to want to be with Him if you don't follow Him.  The two things are NOT the same.  To equate them is the whole problem.  It's like equating "wanting to go to jail" with "wanting fast money."  They're not the same.  One might result from the other, but they're not the same thing, and thus shouldn't be equated.


Yes!  He wanted the money, but didn't want to go to jail.  He went to jail as a consequence of committing a crime, but he didn't want to go to jail.  If you said "he chose to go to jail" you'd make it sound like he wanted to go to jail, which would be inaccurate.  It's accurate to say he went to jail because of his choice to commit crimes.  It's not accurate to say he chose to go to jail.  This is precisely what I'm talking about.  It's okay for you to say I'm going to hell because of my choice not to follow God.  It's not accurate, however, for you to say I choose not to be with God.



Okay, now we get to the part where it's clear that you actually understand, at some level, what I'm saying.  You don't think it's accurate to say that God chose for murder to happen.  Why not?  Because God doesn't want murder to happen.  It's an unintended consequence of his choice to give people free will.  He knows it will happen (unlike me, who doesn't actually think he will end up in hell for his choice), but it's not what he chooses to happen, right?  It sounds bad when I say "God chooses for murders to happen," doesn't it?  Why does it sound bad?  Because when I say that, it sounds like I'm saying that God wants murders to happen, when He really doesn't.  That's the implication of intent that I've been talking about.  If you say "X chooses Y" then you give the impression that X wants Y.  If Y is actually an undesired side effect of a different choice, then the X chooses Y statement obscures the truth, and implies something not true.

Let me make this as clear as I can:

chooser:           Tycho                            God

choice:            Follow/not follow                free will/not free will

unwanted
consequence:       ends up not with God             people murder


wrong way          Tycho chooses not to be          God chooses for people to murder
to describe:       with God.                        each other.

right way          Tycho ends up not with God       people murder people as a result
to describe:       as a result of his decision      of Gods decision to give them
                   not to follow God.               free will

Does that help at all?  Do you see now why it might bother me when you say I choose to not be with God?  It's the same thing as me saying God chooses for murders to happen.  It's not that I'm denying that I've made a choice, and it's not that I'm upset that you're saying the consequence of that choice will be me not being with God.  It's that I don't like the way you imply that the consequence is my goal.  Just as "God choose for people to murder" makes it sound like God wants people to murder, saying "Tycho chooses to not be with God" makes it sound like I want to not be with God.  Does you see how the way you phrase something can imply intent that isn't really there?



I'm not saying you're missing the point because you disagree with me.  If I were, yes, that'd be silly.  The reason I'm saying you're missing the point is that the way you respond shows not that you disagree with me, but that you didn't understand what I'm trying to say.  I say "you're missing the point" to indicate that what you think I'm trying to say, isn't actually what I'm trying to say.  I get the impression you think I'm arguing that there's no choice being made.  You say "But you still made a choice!" and things like that, which sound like you think I'm saying there was no choice.  But that's not my position.  I agree there is a choice.  My point isn't if there's a choice or not, as we both agree there is a choice.  My point is what do we actually choose.  When you say "But you still made a choice!" it sounds like you don't understand what my point is, and thus I say "you're missing the point."  Make sense?

To be clear:  If I say "you're missing the point" it's not meant as an insult.  It's not meant to mean "no, you're wrong!"  It's more like "yes, what you say is true, but that's not what I'm talking about."  If I tell you you're missing the point, don't take it as an attack, take it as an indication that I mean something different than you think I mean.


Yes, everyone agrees that a choice is a choice.  I don't think you'll find anyone who will disagree with that.  Again, though, that's not what I'm disagreeing with.  We agree that a choice is being made.  Where we seem to disagree is over whether what you believe is a choice, or if it's just something that influences your choice.




Yes, your statement is true, but misses the point of what I'm saying.  I'm NOT arguing that we're not making a choice.  What I'm arguing is that our beliefs themselves are not something we can choose.  We can choose how we act, and our beliefs may affect that.  But we can't choose our beliefs at will.  Would you agree to that?


Yes, we all agree on that.  No one is saying otherwise.  What I'm arguing is that we don't choose our beliefs.  We choose our actions, but our beliefs cannot be changed at will.  Would you agree with that?

To save some time in quoting, and repeating the same comments as earlier replies, I disagree Tycho.

I guess it's just one of those things. We take the same information, and process it differently in our own minds. We have come to different conclucions, and think the other is wrong in their conclusion.

In the end, I think the best analogy use for my arguments is the jail scenario. Making a choice does not have to equal liking the consequence.

Okay, then why do you not agree that God choose for people to commit murder?  He made a choice (to give people free will), and He doesn't like the consequence (people killing each other).  Why do you use different rules for statements about God, then you do for everyone else?  Why does it matter what God wants when you talk about His choices, but it doesn't matter what other people want when you talk about their choices?  Do you see what I'm getting at here?  The fact that you disagree with the statement "God chooses for people to murder" shows that, at some level, you do actually get what I'm saying.  I'm not sure what the stumbling block between going from there to the next step is, though.

We both agree that making a choice doesn't equal liking the consequence.  We both agree that someone who commits a crime doesn't want to go to jail.  I think we both agree that it's not accurate to say that someone who commits a crime chooses to go to jail.  What they choose is to commit a crime, and going to jail is a result of that choice.  When we say the criminal chooses to go to jail, we create the false impression that they wanted to go to jail, right?

Let me just try this.  Please answer the following questions.  They may seem trivial, and obvious (and some you have already answered--I'm not asking again to get you to change your mind, but rather so you can compare to other answers next to them), but each should only require a yes/no answer, so it won't be much work for you:

Does God want people to murder each other?
Do people murder each other as a result of God's choice to give them free will?
Does God choose for people to murder each other?

Does the criminal in your analogy want to go to jail?
Does the criminal go to jail as a result of his choice to commit crimes?
Does the criminal choose to go to jail?

Okay, I'm hoping that in each case, you answered no, yes, no to the three questions. If you did, then it seems like you should also answer no, yes, no to the next three:

Does Tycho want to not be with God?
Will Tycho not be with God as a result of his choice not to follow God?
Does Tycho choose not to be with God?

If you didn't answer "no, yes, no" for all three sets of questions, please explain what you think is different about each set that leads to the different answers.  As I see it, all three sets have the basic form:

Does X want Y?
Will X get Y as a result of something else they've choosen?
Does X choose Y?

What I'm trying to show with the first two examples I used (God and murder, and the criminal and jail) is that when you say "X chooses Y" you imply that X wants Y.  God doesn't want murder, and the criminal doesn't want to go to jail, so to say God chooses for people to murder, or that the criminal chooses to go to jail is no accurate.  It sends a false message about the person's intent in each case.

Likewise, when you say the same thing about non-christians "choosing" not to be with God, you create the false impression that they want to not be with God.  Do you see how it's the same situation?  If not, why don't think you think this particular version of "X chooses Y" implies that "X wants Y," when the two previous versions did seem to imply that?

Tycho, we don't agree. It's ok. My reasons were placed within my posts multiple times. The only way I can see this is either you don't understand what I've said, or we have come to different conclusions.

To clarify, I think you are choosing not to be with/follow God. That's from my christian perspective on this situation. You feel otherwise. That's coming from your agnostic perspective.

Yes, I realize you think that.  I'm trying to understand why.  I know why you think I'm going to end up not with God.  That's from your christian perspective.  What I don't understand, and am trying to understand, is why you don't think saying "tycho chooses not to be with God" implies intent, but you do think "God chooses for people to murder" does imply intent.

Please answer the questions in my last post.  It won't take you more than a few minutes, and I think doing so will help us pin down why we're reaching different conclusions.

No, yes, yes. In that order for your last set. My reasons are all within my previous posts as I have stated numerous times. I'm not sure why you don't understand my view of it, as I think I have given some good analogies to make it easier. I think you you go back to my first reply to you #259, that might help with perspective. I think you may be just having a difficult time with your initial thoughts, and are not adding the additional details into te discussion that were added when we went back and forth on it. Otherwise, I accept that we disagree for the reasons we have stated.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:02, Mon 14 July 2008.

And for the rest of the questions?

The reason I don't understand your view of it, is because it doesn't seem to square up with your previous statements about God choosing for people to commit murder.  I don't see why you think that implies intent (ie, you say that God doesn't want people to commit murder) but don't think that "tycho chooses not to be with God" implies intent.  What's different about the first statement and the second?  Why does one imply intent, and the other doesn't?  This is what I don't understand.  Your analogies seemed aimed at making me see that a choice exists.  I realize, accept, and agree that I make a choice.  That's not what we disagree about.  What we disagree about is the implications of your wording, not about whether or not I am making a choice.

Maybe this will help:  Could you please state what you think my position in this argument is?  I'm guessing you think I'm saying something other than I actually am.  If you make explicit what you think my point is, it might be easier for me to point out sticking point?