Praxeology Disproves The Bible?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Dondoolee:

If you think you have a slam dunk argument in support of it, by all means tell me.  And if you are refering to Romans 8: 7-9  I can assure you it has been addressed by the Orthodox

Yes, it has. But that's like creationists "addressing" evolution. And no--the quotes aren't out of context. I know the apologists love to cry and say that they are, but the quotes are in-context.

 

Romans 8:7-9:

For the concern of the flesh is hostility toward God; it does not submit to the law of God, nor can it; and those in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh; on the contrary, you are in the spirit, if only the God dwells in you. Whoever does not have ths Spirit of Christ does not beong to him.

By no means does Romans 8:7-9 mean that man has no free-will, it only means that if man focuses on the concern of the flesh, rather than those of the spirit, that he cannot attain salvation. In fact, it is a hortative statement meant to convince the readers to abandon the flesh in favor of the spirit. In addition, it means that man qua man cannot attain salvation without the grace of God, but again, that does not mean that man does not have free-will, esspecially in view of the fact that God has given all individuals the necessary grace to overcome the flesh, and original sin. To live by the flesh is a human choice that leads to damnation, and St. Paul emphasizes this four lines later in Romans 8:13:

Romans 8:13:

For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if you live by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live

Notice how the above is a conditional clause further implying that St. Paul realized that man has the choice as a free moral agent to either live by the flesh, or by the spirit. 

'by the flesh, by the spirit''

when one falls back to using metaphors to explain metaphors one is lost. furthermor, its possible to please god? quite the perfect being, isnt he?

laminustacitus:

Notice how the above is a conditional clause further implying that St. Paul realized that man has the choice as a free moral agent to either live by the flesh, or by the spirit.

Notice how you're tilting at a strawman, since I wasn't the one who actually referred to those verses.

Gee, you might want to learn to read for attribution.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Notice how you're tilting at a strawman, since I wasn't the one who actually referred to those verses.

Gee, you might want to learn to read for attribution.

Everything is not about you, nor directed at you.

 

laminustacitus:

Everything is not about you, nor directed at you.

Then you shouldn't have included my quotes, should you?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

laminustacitus:

Everything is not about you, nor directed at you.

Then you shouldn't have included my quotes, should you?

Well, it shows that you have no idea what you are talking about, doesn't it? Your responce to him has nothing to do with what Romans 8:7-9 really means. Nevertheless, my quote is to show everything that had been said about Romans 8:7-9 hitherto.

laminustacitus:

Well, it shows that you have no idea what you are talking about, doesn't it?

Only if you live in Bizarro World. You know that one; it's a place where Keynsianism is correct.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

laminustacitus:

Well, it shows that you have no idea what you are talking about, doesn't it?

Only if you live in Bizarro World. You know that one; it's a place where Keynsianism is correct.

Insult me all you want, that is the one thing you're good at.

And you're good at evasion and being intellectually dishonest. We can keep doing this OR you could put forth non-fallacious, logically correct, well-reasoned arguments. Your choice. I suggest the latter.

 

 

This is interesting. Think about it guys. If I were to come up with an argument for how Praxeology disproves Santa Claws (perhaps it could be done), would the issue be taken as seriously as it has in this thread?

Maybe I'll go to university, and get a masters degree in Santa Claws theology. Maybe I'll become a famous philosopher after publishing the Clawsmological Argument.

Now, don't take this as an attack. I'm not trying to ridicule your beliefs. Don't give into the popular opinion that Atheists are a bunch of mean spirited jerks. After all, I used to be one of you. I used to believe in Santa Claws. Lot's of my friends believe in Santa Claws, and they are good people. I still celebrate Giftmass with my family... in a secular kind of way.

As a non believer, it's just painfully obvious to me. WHY would the issue of Santa Claws be absurd, while the issue of God is considered profound?

Santa Claws has already accumulated some "theology" that is cause for confusion.

"He's making a list. He's checking it twice."

"...So be good for goodness sake." (or you won't get a present)

See the contradiction?

As a Libertarian who does NOT believe in Santa Claws, I don't buy into the necessity of supernatural governance.

 

 

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

And you're good at evasion and being intellectually dishonest. We can keep doing this OR you could put forth non-fallacious, logically correct, well-reasoned arguments. Your choice. I suggest the latter.

My argument is there, feel free to critique it all you like, but you have proceeded just to insult me without giving a logical reason, that is consistent with the facts as well, why I am wrong.

laminustacitus:

My argument is there, feel free to critique it all you like, but you have proceeded just to insult me without giving a logical reason, that is consistent with the facts as well, why I am wrong.

Actually....that's a lie, and you know it. I gave several arguments. I attacked your claims. I attacked your inconsistencies. Then you went and pouted and essentially called me a meanie doo-doo head for not rolling over and letting you have your contradictory beliefs. Congratulations: you're immature.

 

BarleyLegal:

This is interesting. Think about it guys. If I were to come up with an argument for how Praxeology disproves Santa Claws (perhaps it could be done), would the issue be taken as seriously as it has in this thread?

This is the internets, you know. It very well could.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

laminustacitus:

My argument is there, feel free to critique it all you like, but you have proceeded just to insult me without giving a logical reason, that is consistent with the facts as well, why I am wrong.

Actually....that's a lie, and you know it. I gave several arguments. I attacked your claims. I attacked your inconsistencies. Then you went and pouted and essentially called me a meanie doo-doo head for not rolling over and letting you have your contradictory beliefs. Congratulations: you're immature.

Notice my qualifier: "that is consitent with the facts as well". For instance, your claim that St. Augustine, and St. Paul are determinists, which by the way you never gave one shread of proof for, is inconsitent with the facts about them. In fact, I would go as far as to say that you have never once substantiated your claims, you never have given a single quotation from either author, for instance. 

laminustacitus:

Notice my qualifier: "that is consitent with the facts as well".

Yep, and what I said was consistent with the facts. That your dogma blinds you isn't my problem in the least bit.

 

laminustacitus:

For instance, your claim that St. Augustine, and St. Paul are determinists, which by the way you never gave one shread of proof for, is inconsitent with the facts about them.

Tell that to the Council of Orange (which I stated...and you can view an HTMLified power point presentation on the subject here) and the calvinists. Surely you're not denying the existence of calvinism, ARE YOU? Oh please PLEASE tell me you are. I would love to post link after link after link showing that calvinism exists.

So....when shall I expect some modicum of honesty from you? Or should we just end this now, given your prediliction for running from the truth?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Tell that to the Council of Orange (which I stated...and you can view an HTMLified power point presentation on the subject here) and the calvinists. Surely you're not denying the existence of calvinism, ARE YOU? Oh please PLEASE tell me you are. I would love to post link after link after link showing that calvinism exists.

Calvinism is based upon an erroneous understanding of St. Augustine, who, just like any other theorist, can be misunderstood. The existence of Calvinism does not mean that St. Augustine taught that man was pre-detestined, rather it means that Calvinists interpreted St. Augustine asserting that man was pre-destined. The Calvinistic understanding of Christian theology is wrong, and it is only a tiny minority of all Christian thinkers - the fact that Calvinism, and its interpretation of predestination emerged a millenium after both St. Augustine, and St. Paul died, and that very few theologians had that interpreation hitherto also displays the weakness of the doctrine.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

So....when shall I expect some modicum of honesty from you? Or should we just end this now, given your prediliction for running from the truth?

I'm actually expecting evidence, the webpage you linked to presupposes the fact that St. Augustine, and St. Paul taught predestination, it takes them as historical facts, and similarly does not attempt to prove them.

laminustacitus:

Calvinism is based upon an erroneous

And the calvinists say you're wrong. Gee, I guess you'll just have to sort it out between all the sects BEFORE you start claiming that only christians can understand christianity. And you should also not play argumentum ad numerum with such nonsense as "very few theologians had that interpreation hitherto also displays the weakness of the doctrine." Why? Because very few economists are Austrian. Does that show a weakness in the Austrian position? Of course not. So why did you try that line of garbage?

And do you actually have anything regarding the OP that isn't apologetics for self-contradictory dogma? Seriously--let's at least try to get back to the topic, which is how can some omnipotent thing actually act.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

So....when shall I expect some modicum of honesty from you? Or should we just end this now, given your prediliction for running from the truth?

laminustacitus:

I'm actually expecting evidence

Which I provided. That you hate all sects which aren't your own is neither here nor there. NMFP.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

And the calvinists say you're wrong.

I have shown above, through Romans 8:7-9 how free will is apart of Christianity.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Gee, I guess you'll just have to sort it out between all the sects BEFORE you start claiming that only christians can understand christianity.

No, but you actually have to know Christian theology in order to understand Christianity.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Because very few economists are Austrian. Does that show a weakness in the Austrian position? Of course not. So why did you try that line of garbage?

But it does mean that Austrians need to be albe to defend their own ideas much harder than a Keynesian would, the argumentum ad numerum is a very useful tool in order to quickly assess what holds the possibilty of being true. In addition, when one is going against orthodox opinions, there comes a responsibility to show that there is strong evidence in your favor.

Again, all of the above is insults, and then the "I already gave you evidence" plea. 

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

So....when shall I expect some modicum of honesty from you? Or should we just end this now, given your prediliction for running from the truth?

laminustacitus:

I'm actually expecting evidence

Which I provided. That you hate all sects which aren't your own is neither here nor there. NMFP.

As I've said before, evidence does not assume the topic spoken of is true, but rather seeks to prove it. In the "evidence" you gave me St. Augustine's, and St. Paul's position as predeterminists was not proven, but assume.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

And the calvinists say you're wrong.

laminustacitus:

I have shown above, through Romans 8:7-9 how free will is apart of Christianity.

And the calvinists say that you're either elect or reprobate. And they're christian because they believe the essentials for it. They quote Augustine and Paul. I don't see why you're letting your dogma blind you.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Gee, I guess you'll just have to sort it out between all the sects BEFORE you start claiming that only christians can understand christianity.

laminustacitus:

No, but you actually have to know Christian theology in order to understand Christianity.

Good thing I do.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Because very few economists are Austrian. Does that show a weakness in the Austrian position? Of course not. So why did you try that line of garbage?

laminustacitus:

But it does mean that Austrians need to be albe to defend their own ideas much harder than a Keynesian would, the argumentum ad numerum is a very useful tool

No it isn't! It's a fallacy. Are you seriously suggesting that a fallacy is a useful tool? No wonder you're having a problem here; you believe that it's great to use fallacies.

Again: I gave you evidence. All the above from you is whining and denial.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

So....when shall I expect some modicum of honesty from you? Or should we just end this now, given your prediliction for running from the truth?

laminustacitus:

I'm actually expecting evidence

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Which I provided. That you hate all sects which aren't your own is neither here nor there. NMFP.

laminustacitus:

As I've said before, evidence does not assume the topic spoken of is true, but rather seeks to prove it. In the "evidence" you gave me St. Augustine's, and St. Paul's position as predeterminists was not proven, but assume.

False.

 Now do you have anything other than hand-waving dogma? I'd like to wrap this up.

nirgrahamUK:

it annoys the hell out of me that theists can hold the two following positions simultaneously :

1) god is ineffable and beyond our understanding and comprehension.

2) I understand and comprehend stuff about god.

which is it??!?!?!

+1

The mechanism that enables the sort of 'thinking' (if it deserves to be so called...) is well described in Orwell's 1984. Of course, it's the sort of thinking behind totalitarianism.

BarleyLegal:

Maybe I'll go to university, and get a masters degree in Santa Claws theology.

Hey, don't mess with Santa Claws or I'll have you reported to the moderators who will ban you in the name of rational discourse.

Juan:

BarleyLegal:

Maybe I'll go to university, and get a masters degree in Santa Claws theology.

Hey, don't mess with Santa Claws or I'll have you reported to the moderators who will ban you in the name of rational discourse.

That could happen. I'm not joking. I know this from experience.

I don't like that two mods are at each other's throats in this thread. It hurts my feelings, and makes me feel less secure as a casual member. However, as "yucky" as it is to witness, it's a sign of health, rather than sickness.This is good, not bad.

I say, let people debate/exchange ideas in the way they wish. Don't judge them. Don't interfere. Get out of the way. If some one is a dedicated troll, let that person try there abilities as a troll. Such a person can not force a response from anyone else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Again: I gave you evidence. All the above from you is whining and denial.

Okay, then. How about this: would you mind showing me the passages of both St. Augustine, and St. Paul that display the both of them support the doctrine of predestination? While you are doing that, I will proceed to hunt down the passages that display the two support the doctrine of free-will. 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Again: I gave you evidence. All the above from you is whining and denial.

laminustacitus:

Okay, then. How about this: would you mind showing me the passages of both St. Augustine, and St. Paul that display the both of them support the doctrine of predestination? While you are doing that, I will proceed to hunt down the passages that display the two support the doctrine of free-will.

All you need is in what I've given. The truth of the matter is that defining god (in part) as omniscient and the creator of everything renders the passages moot in the first place. And those ideas make up part of the christian god's definition. Which makes your belief about free will void. No matter how many passages you desire to find, you will run into the problem of the definition of your god, which one can find here. Notice how that is the online version of the catholic encyclopedia, so you will not be able to say I'm not defining it how you do. I do so love the linguistic legerdemainic loquacity when tackling the logically-unimpeachable conclusion that free will cannot co-exist with said god. And how they try to get around Is 45:7's statement that it is god who created evil (rather than sloughing it off on some idiotic original sin notion).

So what does this all have to do with praxeology? How about "can god actually act, or does god simply play on rails"?

 

BarleyLegal:

That could happen. I'm not joking. I know this from experience.

Such things, while possible, are far less probable here. We all value liberty.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

BarleyLegal:

That could happen. I'm not joking. I know this from experience.

Such things, while possible, are far less probable here. We all value liberty.

I hope so.

I really like it here.

... If only I could log into the chatroom.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Dondoolee:

1) The Catholics claim Peter, Paul, James, Clemens,Ignatious, etc and while I suppose you could call them "Catholic" if you look at it from a straight up Catholic perspective, they influenced and are celebrated as saints by more than just the Catholic Church.

Granted, butthe catholics claim that Peter was the first pope, too. So I'm just going by their words.

 

Dondoolee:

2) And if I read the rest of your argument correctly you are saying that a) you are an atheist b) you disagree with Christianity c) you find various Christians sects arguing about various topics silly.  However you are only accepting one argument (St Paul being a determinist, for example) acceptable to define your terms, correct?

Given that Paul's influence on the history of christan doctrine is so immense, one would be silly to ignore his words in the development of christian doctrine, wouldn't you say?

 

1)  All Christian sects that were united at the council of Nicea will at least admit to the Bishop of Rome as the "1st among equals", we are probably guilty of nitpicking a point here, but for some reason I am really enjoying the nitpicking.  I think I was going for a more genreral ancient christian approach or maybe even an all encompasing type of xtian approach.  If you are just talking about a  strictlyCatholic perspective that'ss fine, just say so, to avoid any confusion in definitions

2)vYes, as far as New Testament personalties it would easily go Jesus > Paul/Peter.  No doubt about that.  But if we also look at greatest variance of translations of what the person was saying, and what they meant it would go Jesus > Paul, wouldn't you agree?  There is much disagreement among the various Christian sects by what these writers were trying to convey, wouldn't you at least admit that this is almost a self-evident truth?  On a personal note, I tend to usually agree more with the Apostolic type churchs' arguments when discussing "the one true christianity", to me they seem to usually be more interesting fellows and a much more interesting history.  Protestantism type of logic confuses me to no end.

nirgrahamUK:

the will being uncaused is a nonsense and unecessary.

Ok it may be more correct to say the will is self caused yet purposeful. But I fail to see why the substance of my claim is invalid: if the will is random there is no non-arbitrary selection criteria for truth and if the will is determined then how do we know the atoms or the "spiritual" substances that make up our will are telling the truth? The only way in which a deterministic position could yield truth is if our wills are ontological good and correct and therefore could never fail in judgment. However since I can claim that A is the same as non_a this obviously not the case.

nirgrahamUK:

and how can perfect beings have 'preferences' let alone 'act' on them?. you are in the habit of anthropomorphising.

If a being is perfectly good surely he will have a preference for good?

nirgrahamUK:

is 'creation' an 'action',you can't suppose that god created anything, since the word creation can't beunderstood outside of the realm of what humans can understand, and you put your god beyond that. its your own trap.

it annoys the hell out of me that theists can hold the two following positions simultaneously :

1) god is ineffable and beyond our understanding and comprehension.

2) I understand and comprehend stuff about god.

which is it??!?!?!

(note the 1st claim is itself internally contradictary because it is a statement that i understand that god is beyond understanding)

Where have I argued that God is ineffable? I would argue however as with most things we only get a partial knowledge of things and the same thing goes with God.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Better or worse makes no difference; we simply are robots created by some deity, according to the idea that said deity created everything and knows everything.

I assume you are presuming that exhaustive knowledge of the future renders free will redundant; I agree. This position regarding God is known as Open Theism. If you are interested I wrote a defence of the position which can be found here. Essentially my argument is:

1. To know something it must exist or have existed.

2. The future does not exist nor has existed.

3. Therefore the future is unknowable.

I allow though for the possibility that God could know the future if he brings everything to pass; this is though unbiblical since it is contrary to free will.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Physiocrat:

Further without God what criterion are you using for good and evil and why?

*facepalm*

Oh please. Go read Euthyphro.

I am familiar with the objection. Essentially it posits a dilemma: either the Gods command what is good or what the Gods command are good; so either goodness is arbitrary or is above the Gods. It  posits a false dichotomy though: if God is himself good and acts consistently with his nature then there's no criterion of good above him and his commands are not arbitrary.

Without a deity what criterion are you using for good and evil? At this point I'm not endorsing any particular theistic system but establishing the principle that a deity is needed if one can meaningfully talk about good and evil.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Physiocrat:

So your objection to an acting God is not that in acting he contradicts his nature but that because there is evil in the world God cannot exist because he would have avoided it?

Yes, the only way out of that is the elimination of omnibenevolence from god's attributes. And I've never met a christian who would accept doing that. Perhaps there are some, but I've simply never come across them.

I would agree with you if God does not punish sin(evil), but Biblically speaking he does partially at present but will ultimately in the final judgement. So I think the problem of evil argument suffers from a lack of perspective time wise: the fact God doesn't stop evil now does not mean he won't ultimately. The reason for this is that he wishes that all will come to repentance and non would perish as it is stated in 1st Peter 3.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Physiocrat:

The principle of Free Will
First Principle -- I make decisions.
Contrary -- I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot.
Absurdity -- if I make no decisions, I did not decide to believe the
statement "I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot."

That isn't absurd; thats the truth.

And you can't judge anything as true or false per se; you can only say what you were programmed to. Such is where the omniscient creator of everything gets you. NMFP. Your mess; clean it up. But be honest with yourself when you do.

See above. It seems it is not my problem but is very much yours.

 

BarleyLegal:

I hope so.

I really like it here.

... If only I could log into the chatroom.

Have you tried the webclient from the live chat tab/button? Mibbit was banned by Freenode, so we're having to use Freenode's webclient. And it's possible that the Freenode admins themselves (which we have no control over) don't like your username.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Better or worse makes no difference; we simply are robots created by some deity, according to the idea that said deity created everything and knows everything.

Physiocrat:

I assume you are presuming that exhaustive knowledge of the future

And creating everything. Don't forget that. I've noticed the near-universal tendency to leave that part out when trying to get around the problem of stuffing free-will into the pot. Please don't be like those dishonest people and forget the creating-everything aspect. I wouldn't want you to be dishonest.

 

Physiocrat:

renders free will redundant; I agree. This position regarding God is known as Open Theism. If you are interested I wrote a defence of the position which can be found here. Essentially my argument is:

1. To know something it must exist or have existed.

2. The future does not exist nor has existed.

3. Therefore the future is unknowable.

But god supposely created everything and knows everything. So your "argument" is moot.

 

Physiocrat:

Further without God what criterion are you using for good and evil and why?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

*facepalm*

Oh please. Go read Euthyphro.

Physiocrat:

I am familiar with the objection.

Then you realize that it's absolutely no different from saying that we need a government to make us all behave.

 

Physiocrat:

So your objection to an acting God is not that in acting he contradicts his nature but that because there is evil in the world God cannot exist because he would have avoided it?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Yes, the only way out of that is the elimination of omnibenevolence from god's attributes. And I've never met a christian who would accept doing that. Perhaps there are some, but I've simply never come across them.

Physiocrat:

I would agree with you if God does not punish sin(evil), but Biblically speaking he does partially at present but will ultimately in the final judgement. So I think the problem of evil argument suffers from a lack of perspective time wise

Ah, the fog of mysticism is raised. Sorry--won't do.

 

Physiocrat:

The principle of Free Will
First Principle -- I make decisions.
Contrary -- I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot.
Absurdity -- if I make no decisions, I did not decide to believe the
statement "I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot."

Knight_of_BAAWA:

That isn't absurd; thats the truth.

And you can't judge anything as true or false per se; you can only say what you were programmed to. Such is where the omniscient creator of everything gets you. NMFP. Your mess; clean it up. But be honest with yourself when you do.

Physiocrat:

See above.

I have. It's your problem.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

So what does this all have to do with praxeology? How about "can god actually act, or does god simply play on rails"?

I'm not particularly pious or knowledgable about theology so I'll save my comment for this particularly question.  Now, I think we can all agree that if there is a god he exists outside the human framework of time. When a human acts we can say "John opened a can of soda to alleviate his thirst at 8:30". This is not the same with god. We can't say god created humanity at 9:30 to alleviate his loneliness or something like that. Why? Because if god exists and moreover if god exists outside of time then god, the alleged actor, didn't perceive time. Everything he did he did all at once as part of his being. It is only humans who perceive this as happening a 2000 BC or 20 AD or whatever. We can't say why wouldn't god have thought of that before if he was perfect because he did. Everything he did hypothetically could have happened at once from his POV. I hope that objection to an objection makes sense.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

And creating everything. Don't forget that.

You assume God created only clocks that are pre-ordained to follow towards a single end, which is an absurd assumption. Plus, God created man specifically as a free moral agent.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

But god supposely created everything and knows everything. So your "argument" is moot.

Just because God has foreknowledge of your decisions does not meant that your decisions are not still your decisions.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Then you realize that it's absolutely no different from saying that we need a government to make us all behave.

Non sequitur. God, and government are two completely different entities, and the concepts of "good", and "evil" are intrinisically tied to God. Without God, there is no possible method of saying that an act is "good", or "evil" for there would be no objective critieria for the two, which are truly objective statements of morality.

you are obviously a false messiah, claiming to know lots of facts about god. a likely story.

 

Is it possible to have a thread about religion without it breaking down into the usuall debates?  Perhaps the moderaters should be extra strict with shutting these threads down.  While I find some of the thoughts/philosophy/history highly interesting,  religion is a pretty remote topic to Austrian Economics, and I think it is quite safe to say a highly sensitive topic as well, to the point of most discussions becoming highly redundant and unproductive.  This seems hardly worthwhile for a site based off of economics.  My 1 cent.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Have you tried the webclient from the live chat tab/button? Mibbit was banned by Freenode, so we're having to use Freenode's webclient. And it's possible that the Freenode admins themselves (which we have no control over) don't like your username.

Yeah, the tab no longer works for me. However, I can connect with MIRC now, though I don't dare use my regular nick.

LOL, so typical.

 

 

dondoolee:

Is it possible to have a thread about religion without it breaking down into the usuall debates ?

What do you mean ? Revealed religion is just a bunch of unfounded assertions. What other sort of 'debate' can you expect ? There are utterly arrogant people who think they are the mouthpiece of god, endlessly repeat a script, and are willing to destroy their opponents cause in a rational debate the only think they can do is lose.

Perhaps the moderaters should be extra strict with shutting these threads down.

Again, what do you mean ? Why should these threads be shut down ? Censorship in the name of freedom ? What ?

While I find some of the thoughts/philosophy/history highly interesting, religion is a pretty remote topic to Austrian Economics,

This site is about "advancing the scholarship of liberty" and revealed religion seems to be a big obstacle in the path to liberty.

and I think it is quite safe to say a highly sensitive topic as well, to the point of most discussions becoming highly redundant and unproductive.

What do you mean ? Why is getting rid of senseless myths an 'unproductive' activity ?

This seems hardly worthwhile for a site based off of economics.

Did I mention that this site is about "advancing the scholarship of liberty" ?

In terms of what I've read of Mises in Human Action, for him Praxeology doesn't apply to a God-like being. Thus, it's application is for humans (which he sees as acting man) and not God. He doesn't seem to be bothered by this situation, nor am I. Even an atheist, I see the question of an absolute/ultimate cause to be pointless in the vast majority of cases in which human beings must resolve or endure. The rest, I leave for fluffy stories and mushy minded folks. *shrugs*

Nerditarian:

I'm not particularly pious or knowledgable about theology so I'll save my comment for this particularly question.  Now, I think we can all agree that if there is a god he exists outside the human framework of time.

But then god can't act.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

And creating everything. Don't forget that.

laminustacitus:

You assume

Wrong. I conclude.  Why do you confuse conclusion with assumption?

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

But god supposely created everything and knows everything. So your "argument" is moot.

laminustacitus:

Just because God has foreknowledge of your decisions does not meant that your decisions are not still your decisions.

Why did you just dishonestly leave out that god created everything?

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Then you realize that it's absolutely no different from saying that we need a government to make us all behave.

laminustacitus:

Non sequitur.

Wrong. It's the same argument with different terms. That you refuse to admit the similarities isn't my problem.

 

nirgrahamUK:

you are obviously a false messiah, claiming to know lots of facts about god. a likely story.

'e's no' the messiah; 'e's a very nau'y boy.