"The muslim trinity"

[Resistor]

Doesn’t understand analogical reasoning or concept, but tries anyway. lol

You must feel pretty proud in your accomplishments to be the only Christian who does understand it
What a joke.

 

[Artful Revealer]

I'm not pansyfooting around with you mate, all you're doing is implying the heresy of Docetism, where Jesus wasn't really a real man, that he was an illusion.

There’s no implication of docetism in the analogy, at all. Do you even understand what you write?

It implies a dual nature, in the game avatar’s case a digital and human nature.

 

[Kung Fu]

Imagine you're the only human left. There's no one else. You create a virtual world, a video game, with artifical intelligence. It's filled with NPC characters and you've coded into them and the world they're living in all the possibilities we have in our existence and an immitation of our own biological properties, enough so they could act on free will, create things on their own and reproduce, etc. You create your own character. You call him Kung Fu. You control only that character while all other characters act on free will that you've given them. But everything your character Kung Fu says or does, is YOU, the real YOU, the Living Father. It can't do something as long as you don't make it do something, unless you program him to do something.

I'm human and the character I created isn't just as the Father is God and Jesus was not because if he was than he wouldn't be able to die and he would know everything. The character I created can come back to life multiple times, I, as a human, can't. And all of this because the character I created is not me. Like I keep saying false equivalence fallacy. Those are just some of the problems with your analogy. There's more but I won't get into it.

Also, Jesus had free will by choosing to do God's Will except for the time when prayed in the garden and asked God to save him from the crucifixion.

 

[Resistor]

Also, Jesus had free will by choosing to do God's Will except for the time when prayed in the garden and asked God to save him from the crucifixion.

Good point

 

[seekinheart]

Good point

thats a huge misconception he asked to be spared gods wrath as he was not subject to it.

 

[Artful Revealer]

I'm human and the character I created isn't just as the Father is God and Jesus was not because if he was than he wouldn't be able to die and he would know everything. The character I created can come back to life multiple times, I, as a human, can't. And all of this because the character I created is not me. Like I keep saying false equivalence fallacy. Those are just some of the problems with your analogy. There's more but I won't get into it.

Also, Jesus had free will by choosing to do God's Will except for the time when prayed in the garden and asked God to save him from the crucifixion.

It's better to do a bit at a time, no problem.

I'll answer each objection individually:

I'm human and the character I created isn't, just as the Father is God and Jesus was not

Every man God created is 100% human. Every character you create is 100% digital. Agreed?

You could then say that a human is to God what a digital character is to a human. Agreed?

Therefore, if a digital character can be "controlled" by a human, a human could be "controlled" by God. Agreed?

Therefore, when a digital character is being controlled by a human, he has a digital nature as well as a human nature. Similarly, when a human is being controlled by God, he has a human nature as well as a divine nature. Agreed?

Jesus was not (God) because if he was then he wouldn't be able to die

IF a human is controlled by God, he would have a human nature and a divine nature. It is in the human nature to die, not in the divine nature. Therefore, a human controlled by God can have a divine nature and still die, because he has a human nature.

and he (Jesus) would know everything

The digital character by itself would not know everything. It is the human creator who controls him who knows everything (about the universe the digital character is in). So too would the human by itself not know everything. It is God who controls him who knows everything (about the universe the human is in).

The character I created can come back to life multiple times, I, as a human, can't.

Any digital character you create can come back to life if you, being the creator, make it so. Any human God creates can come back to life if God, being the Creator, makes it so.

And all of this because the character I created is not me.

The digital character you control is you. And when you control him, a human nature is added to his digital nature. The human nature of that digital character refers to your human nature, therefore the digital character is you.

Also, Jesus had free will by choosing to do God's Will

When you control a digital character, it is your will who chooses. You may choose a character whose will you single out as being the best among digital characters. So while many digital characters could have the free will to choose to do your will, it is eventually you who elects the character. So too was Jesus elected:

Luke 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

 

[Resistor]

You could then say that a human is to God what a digital character is to a human. Agreed?

Obviously not because then there would be no need for morality.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Obviously not because then there would be no need for morality.

What?

 

[Resistor]

What?

There is no weight to anything in a video game, there is only in-game achievement for the player of the game. Morality is very much irrelevant to it, Grand Theft Auto as an infamous example.
So if this life is like a video game, and God entered into it (which is nonsensical to begin with) then it would turn God into an equivalent of the ancient pagan trickster deities who toy with humanity and lead them astray.
A digital character has nothing but programmed responses, sounds and movements. Morality itself becomes a tiny false construct in such a world, guided only by the goals required for passing a level or getting achievements within a sandbox game.

 

[Artful Revealer]

There is no weight to anything in a video game, there is only in-game achievement for the player of the game. Morality is very much irrelevant to it, Grand Theft Auto as an infamous example.
So if this life is like a video game, and God entered into it (which is nonsensical to begin with) then it would turn God into an equivalent of the ancient pagan trickster deities who toy with humanity and lead them astray.
A digital character has nothing but programmed responses, sounds and movements. Morality itself becomes a tiny false construct in such a world, guided only by the goals required for passing a level or getting achievements within a sandbox game.

You're adding properties that are irrelevant to the abstraction of the analogy. I'm sure you believe you've provided a proper argument, but you haven't. I'll stick with Kung Fu, thanks.

 

[Resistor]

Any digital character you create can come back to life if you, being the creator, make it so. Any human God creates can come back to life if God, being the Creator, makes it so.

That's not true, levels have restart points often (in games that don't have deliberate "game over" screens) but you as the game player do not have any control over the NPCs of games, unless the actual programmer of the game makes it so.
And in that case, you are playing the programmed sequences of another person (the game company, etc).
The game player is usually quite constrained to the limits set by the game designer and programmers.

 

[Artful Revealer]

That's not true, levels have restart points often (in games that don't have deliberate "game over" screens) but you as the game player do not have any control over the NPCs of games, unless the actual programmer of the game makes it so.
And in that case, you are playing the programmed sequences of another person (the game company, etc).
The game player is usually quite constrained to the limits set by the game designer and programmers.

The game player is the game creator in the analogy.

Quote:

Imagine you're the only human left. There's no one else. You create a virtual world, a video game, with artifical intelligence

But it doesn't matter.

The analogy illustrates the idea of a dual nature.

 

[Resistor]

The analogy illustrates the idea of a dual nature.

No it demonstrates Determinism with zero free will, and the only 'free will' going to the game player as entertainment.

 

[Resistor]

It's sadistic.

 

[Artful Revealer]

No it demonstrates Determinism with zero free will, and the only 'free will' going to the game player as entertainment.

Quote:

It's filled with NPC characters and you've coded into them and the world they're living in all the possibilities we have in our existence and an immitation of our own biological properties, enough so they could act on free will, create things on their own and reproduce, etc. You create your own character. You call him Kung Fu. You control only that character while all other characters act on free will that you've given them.

 

[Resistor]

Quote:

Again, so what is the weight of any of this?

Answer, there is none.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Again, so what is the weight of any of this?

Answer, there is none.

Either logically refute the dual nature, or stop obfuscating and deflecting.

 

[Resistor]

Either logically refute the dual nature, or stop obfuscating and deflecting.

There is no dual nature, period. One is real and one is fake, illusory, fictive. Neither becomes the other under any circumstance, analogous or not.

You are using bad analogies for concepts that you don't understand.

 

[Artful Revealer]

There is no dual nature, period. One is real and one is fake, illusory, fictive.

You are using bad analogies for concepts that you don't understand.

You're just saying "no". You're not giving arguments.

 

[Resistor]

You're just saying "no". You're not giving arguments.

You're just making claims and then standing idle saying "you can't prove me wrong" without backing up your claims. The burden of proof is on you, not those who disbelieve your beliefs.

Show us how both a video game and the player of the game are equally real? you can't, let alone begin to use you analogy in any meaningful way when it is fundamentally flawed from the start.