It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New ex-Christian who is lost in his own freedom and uncertainty.

page: 21
8
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by Good Wolf
If eye-witness testimony is unreliable then nobody knows what is true and what is false. In that case there is no such thing as fact and there is no such thing as absolute truth. Same goes for science, logic, rationale.


Surely you know what evidence is.

In the words of Aron Ra:
For example, if I go into my front yard and I see a large sauropod walking down the middle of my street, I will of course be quite convinced of what I see. I may be even more satisfied when I follow the thing and find that I can touch it, maybe even ride it if I want to. When I gather sense enough to run back for my camcorder, I may not be able to find the beast again, because I don't know which way it went. But that doesn’t matter because I saw it, I heard it, felt it, smelt it and I remember all that clearly with a sober and rational mind. But somehow I'm the only one who ever noticed it, and of course no one believes me. Some other guy says he saw a dinosaur too, but his description was completely different, such that we can’t both be talking about the same thing. So it doesn't matter how convinced I am that it really happened. It might not have. When days go by and there are still no tracks, no excrement, no destruction, no sign of the beast at all, no other witnesses who’s testimony lends credence to mine, and no explanation for how a 20-meter long dinosaur could just disappear in the suburbs of a major metropolis, much less how it could have appeared there in the first place, -then it becomes much easier to explain how there could be only two witnesses who can’t agree on what they think they saw, than it is to explain all the impossibilities against that dinosaur ever really being there. Positive claims require positive evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that’s what I’d need –since what I propose isn’t just extraordinary; its impossible. But since there's not one fact I can show that anyone can measure or otherwise confirm, then my perspective is still subjective -and thus uncertain. Eventually, even I, the eyewitness, would have to admit that, although I did see it, I still don’t know if it was ever really there –regardless whether I still believe that it was.



But who are you to say what is rational and what is irrational??? Is Christiantiy being silly & Irrational a fact???? Are you Irrational & silly for even stating the above notion??.


As if I can't have opinions!!




And don't give me that 'God cannot be rationalised by feeble human minds' crap, because god is not complex


This is a huge contradiction for you to state this because you say this as if you know God, when you just said your agnostic?


Hypothetical.


But based on this "not complex" assumption you have about God ...I will say having Spiritual enlightenment myself and knowing God to be real ...this realization I live with is rather simple ...but to say God is not complex is the biggest understatement I ever heard or ever will in my life.


You can talk to you're blue in the face, but this is all still subjective, so you need to replace "Knowing God to be real" with "believing God to be real".




On top of that, these are the minds that he supposedly bestowed us with, so I don't see why he make them feeble, he wouldn't.


Well the thing about that is .....we used to exist with the ability to comprehend and have relationships and see God.


Bwahaha!
I'm not sure I can be bothered spending anymore time with this. Go to one of the many threads here and learn that the earth is not 6000 YO




But at the end of the day, one only believes in God subjectively, because while seeing is believing, believing is not knowing, nor is seeing. It takes more than an indeterminable indemonstrable 'experience' to 'know' such things.


So than what constitutes "knowing" according to you? Because the way you stated the above paragraph, it seems to me that to "know" something according to your ideologies, is something that's virtually impossible to do. I am of course assuming this based on your words above.


Well I already touched on this above. Take gravity for example. I believe that gravity exists as commonly believed. The great thing about this is that gravity is demonstrable and hence is subject to examination.

I 'know' gravity exists because I can prove it, and I don't need faith or spiritual blinder-ER 'interpreters'.

One can not draw simply on experience to prove anything. Take for example all the people who say they have been abducted. They believe it, some even claim to 'know' it, yet they can't prove it to any stretch of the imagination.

[edit on 9/16/2008 by Good Wolf]




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   
To the OP, what you have done is open your mind to the possibilities. I too was raised christian and had the same questions you do. How I handled it was to read and study about every spiritual belief system I could find. I even read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, a renowned aetheist. One day I picked up The Complete Idiot's Guide to Wicca and Witchcraft and I found something that mirrored alot of the conclusions I had already come to myself in studing spirituality in general. I'm not saying that it is the right one for you, only you will know which one makes sense to you. But the journey is well worth the trip!


Good luck on your journey and I hope you also enjoy the trip!
Blessed Be!



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 




In the words of Aron Ra:


His whole system and perspective is flawed and incomplete as far as evidence and truth. According to quantum mechanics, something I got deeply into after experiencing God, there are black holes, other dimensions, and so forth. So technically the guy experiencing the dinosaur, really could have experienced him and it would be truth according to what he saw and how it was processes even if he was the only one.

Of course, the neighbor seeing something different presents a problem, and I have already explained a billion times that if one experiences, let's say truth, subjectively. That truth is still truth whether subjective or objective and in my case my experiences are corroborated by thousands of others who choose to, and make an effort, to walk this path.

2+2=5 whether anyone understands this or not and it was this way even before humans existed. Same with God. Again, you listen to ur radio and have to tune into you favorite station. But now were are going in circles because I've explained this a million times here and the best you can do is post something by Aron Ra which is incomplete.



As if I can't have opinions!!


Of course you can, never said you couldnt. Since words and perspectives are limited and get lost in translation, at least next time state that you are speaking hypothetically so I can understand better where you are coming from.



You can talk to you're blue in the face, but this is all still subjective, so you need to replace "Knowing God to be real" with "believing God to be real".


Subjective truth is still truth, subjective experience is still experience. 2+2=5 no matter what and does not depend on anything. God doesn't depend and operate on objectivity, and Im wondering who is the ultimate authority that invented this incomplete notion that only something objective is true. What a complete joke that is and makes me cry from laughter.



Bwahaha! I'm not sure I can be bothered spending anymore time with this. Go to one of the many threads here and learn that the earth is not 6000 YO


DId I say anywhere that I believe the earth is 6000 YO???? Thats a complete joke to me. I punk out so called Christians who try and use this weak garbage argument. My definition is that it is millions if not billions of years old, but then again the Bible doesn't directly ever give a 6000 year time period. Who-ever says this or told you this is another lost sheep.



I 'know' gravity exists because I can prove it, and I don't need faith or spiritual blinder-ER 'interpreters'.


Yeah but you have faith in your proof and faith that your proof will convince others. Faith is for baby Christians or those that think that the world is 6000Y.O. I, on the other hand, know from direct experience. I have had proof enough and experience God daily. I dont need faith, nor do I use it. Neither do I use faith in the proof that I have that will convince an agnostic or atheist.

In my days I have brought many atheists/agnostics into a direct experience of God by pointing the way on the path. If you choose to stay boxed in your logic/rationale/reason ...that is your free willed choice, and I get the last laugh, not in a A**hole kind of way, but in a compassionate wisdom and empathy for you, because when your old and its time to cast off your body, then you will enter into a place where you will see for yourself that what I have written has been right all along, and "there" it will be brought up to you ....these posts and how I was right.

On the other hand, I have already been, "there" and experience it all the time so I know whats awaiting all of us. There is no faith here, I know because I eat, sleep, and breath these realities daily and you obviously do not. Though I wish you could/would .....because then you wouldnt be posting weak quotes by Ra.



One can not draw simply on experience to prove anything. Take for example all the people who say they have been abducted. They believe it, some even claim to 'know' it, yet they can't prove it to any stretch of the imagination.


So sit them by a lie detector test. If they pass it, that gives me more credence to believe them. Strap me in one of those and ask me if I have directly experienced God. I will pass and you will have more intellectual excuses to work out with yourself.

How about you prove to me that you had a crush n someone in 6th grade. Or that you Love your mother, or that you Love anyone in general. Show me this "Love."

Proof comes from experience. The experience of examining proof, objectivity, subjectivity, opinions, and so forth.

You believe and say you know gravity exists because you experience it and others have as well and that it "is demonstrable and hence is subject to examination."

I've been telling you this from the very beginning of my posts here. The same thing goes for God. There are others who are Spiritual Scientists and have already tread the path to God. So it is demonstratable and subject to examination.

Follow the paths others have to God and you will examine and demonstrate it for yourself. But refuse to do so and you wont know squat about it except as a speculator, outsider, skeptic. Its really as simple as that.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   
OH COME ON! A lie detector test?!

There is a reason they aren't accepted as evidence in court all around the world- they prove squat. And any all they can possibly attempt to do is show that a person believes what they are saying. I used to be a chronic liar and I know that I can convince myself that a lie is truth (doublethink), it makes it infinitely easier to lie when you believe it (at least for a time). Belief is not knowledge, nor is it evidence, so it certainly isn't proof of anything, nor is it indicative of truth.

Imagine travelling through time and getting someone that believes that the earth is flat and putting him in a lie detector test.

Ask him is the earth flat.

The answer will be yes and the machine will say he believes what he says (if he's lucky because they margins are large).
Yet is the earth flat? No. We 'know' that as a fact.

And by the way "subjective truth" doesn't exist, truth is not subjective but beliefs are.

Ones experiences are not evidence



[edit on 9/16/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 


As far as lie detectors, yes they can be tricked, and loop-holed ...but when some hick family undergoes one with know knowledge on how to do so. There's more credability to this notion, but of course you can make up a lie and believe it so much you yourself think its true. Thats pretty messed up right there, self deception. I know we are capable of this ....but you know at this point no matter what I bring up you will have excuses for everything I see.



Belief is not knowledge, nor is it evidence, so it certainly isn't proof of anything, nor is it indicative of truth.


Are you serious?? HAHAHahahahaha

i dont know where your getting this imaginitive "belief" from all this time, but I know for 100% i dont operate on any belief systems but by direct experience of truth. Perhaps you are operating on so many belief systems and that's why you believe the way you do. Read my conclusion at the bottom and it will make more sense.



Imagine travelling through time and getting someone that believes that the earth is flat and putting him in a lie detector test. Ask him is the earth flat. The answer will be yes and the machine will say he believes what he says (if he's lucky because they margins are large). Yet is the earth flat? No. We 'know' that as a fact.


Imagine a future where everyone is born, lives, and dies knowing all the time the existence of God. Now imagine one of these people takes a time machine into the present day an age.

Now imagine this future visitor asks dawkins, harris, hitchens if Atheism is true ...they would pass the lie detector test also, as would a theist. Although it would be cool if a lie detector test never allowed an atheist to pass. Either way this becomes irrelevant, my point being God is true no matter what.



And by the way "subjective truth" doesn't exist, truth is not subjective but beliefs are. Ones experiences are not evidence


1st off, why dont you google "subjective truth" and click on the more substantive sources of information on this topic. You will see support by the most prominent philosophers in the world who support the idea of subjective truth, both in the realms of theism & atheism and even agnostic philosophers all support subjective truth to one extent or another, subjective truth of course being very dynamic and room for debate about its dynamics, but itself it exists.

Never-the-less, we have you here stating that subjective truth doesnt exist versus a vast array of historical, academically respected, individuals of antiquity that say you are wrong. I think I'll go with the majority with this one, not that I have to because when I experienced God I knew at that point that subjective truth is still truth.




Ones experiences are not evidence


Are you serious??? HAHahahahahaha
Everything is experience, you reading this, weighing proof, existence, living, breathing, being. I cant believe you even said that. What else besides experience and even truth experiencing us and we experiencing truth is there. I dont even really want to go further with this, my stomach hurts from laughing ....but I still respect you though.

I just think you should relabel this post to something else. You call it, "New Ex-Christian, who is lost in his own freedom and uncertainty."

I can understand the lost in freedom and uncertainty thing, but Ex-Christian??? Come on now. You never really were a Christian because if you really were you would have never departed especially from things like watching zeitgeist and seeing the hipocracy, double standards, and apathy in the church.

Of course thats whats going on in the church because the Church isnt God and that place is for sundays and people. You were on point when you started to go within and start looking there ...thats where real Christianity is at within, and then you watched zeitgeist, so full of holes that mice line up for miles around thinking its swiss cheese, and you punked out man.

But oh you were so close with the going within. I garuntee you that if you went within and experienced what I have, you would never be an ex-Christian. You just happened to see the false side of something claiming to be it and got wrapped up in backwards skepticism. But I reemphasize that you never really were a true Christian if your now an Ex-one.

Oh well, theres always the death bed scenario and the last fear based bail out. But your still young. Almost 20. You'll see the emptiness in every other option yourself as you choose this agnostic path and spend the next 10-20 years this way. All else is dead ends, something you yourself will experience and know from your own experience that this is subjective truth.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


I'm not bothered with this anymore. It rapidly de-escalating in to an argument. You've made up your mind for what ever reason, and I'm unconvinced.

But since you don't seem to operate on the same logical scientific rules for your conclusions, I'm not convinced. After all, absolute truth is unattainable by us and the supernatural is untestable, by it's very nature.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Good Wolf
 




After all, absolute truth is unattainable by us


That's an absolute statement. To say there is no absolute truth is an absolute statement, so you just put yourself in a hole with that one.




and the supernatural is untestable, by it's very nature.


That's coming form someone who hasn't tested it. A statement that can only be true to someone who has yet to experience those realities. I have tested them along with hundreds of thousands of others to find that is true by its very own default. Your in a very small minority.

But it's cool, I'll leave this alone because you just dont understand where Im coming from, though most people I have these discussions with including atheists and other agnostics do understand where I'm coming from and invite me over for discussions all the time. So the concensus here is that your one of the few stuck in a limited intellectual box.

I have compassion though, wish you only the very best, and my sincere prayers will be with you and your loved ones.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by dominicus]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Originally posted by dominicus


After all, absolute truth is unattainable by us




That's an absolute statement. To say there is no absolute truth is an absolute statement, so you just put yourself in a hole with that one.


It's an absolute statement, not absolute truth. There is a difference, one is a reality and the other is the reality.

And btw, the natural is testable because it operates on a set of rules (either understood or not). The supernatural is not testable because it won't adhere to any natural laws, so testing leads to nothing provable or demonstrable. That is why science doesn't permit any supernatural explanations.

Now I'm tired of this futile argument. It was good chatting with you, see you round.

[edit on 9/18/2008 by Good Wolf]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
I can tell that you have not kept up with this thread, as I have repeated myself over and over and over again.
Parrots repeat themselves over and over again too. Eventually you need to get passed saying “hello” .


I will name the contradictions and you will ignore them as others have. Or worse yet, you will make an excuse which I will prove to be even worse than the first choice.
Baseless assumptions; Doubtful

I’ve italicized those which are most certainly not contradictions; left questionable things normal, and made bold those which may be contradictions if they are true.



Contradictions:
1) Contradiction of a perfect omnipotent God creating a flawed world.

Who said that G*d is a perfect omnipotent being? Who said that the world is flawed??? Even if both were the case; this is still not a contradiction. Let’s delve deeper . . .
Perfection can only be addressed by philosophical means because we have no instrument capable of determining anything’s perfection, or lack there of. Philosophically speaking, something being imperfect is not a requisite for it to yield a product of imperfection.


2) Contradiction of an omnipotent God being tricked by his creation (Satan) as if he didn't see it coming.

When did an omnipotent G*d get tricked by “his” creation exactly? Regardless, something that is omnipotent can be deceived; something that is omniscient cannot. Define your terms! This is only possibly a contradiction.


3) Contradiction of an infinite being creating something. If he was infinite, then he would contradict himself in creating something.

You need to brush up on the concept of infinity. Infinity deals with limits and boundaries.
In laymen’s terms and in relation to math, if oo was a “real” “number”; any real numbers added or subtracted from oo still equal oo. Since the mass of the universe can purportedly be measured using real numbers (around 1.6 × 1055 kg). The destruction or creation of the universe is inconsequential to oo.


4) Contradiction of the God of the Old Testament being completely different than the God of the New Testament.
How is G*d contradicting “himself” here? The portrayal of G*d in the New and Old Testament is linear in relation to time and perception . . .


5) Hundreds, if not thousands, of contradictions in the Bible which can not be explained.
considering only 1 out of your first 4 proposed “contradictions” are even capable of being contradictions; I’m going to assume you’re off your mark with that calculation. But please, give me a small number, or any number, that you can provide evidence for.


6) Contradiction of a creator judging his creation for how he himself made his creation.

Again, not a contradiction; anyone can judge anything that they can perceive, regardless as to whom created it or even if they themselves created it. I can draw a picture right now and judge it as poor, great, etc.


7) Contradiction of the Bible and scientific evidence. The Earth is not 6,000 years old, it is millions of years old, and there is proof of this.

When did the bible claim that the earth is 6,000 years old? I must have missed that part. Even if it did; science has been wrong many times in the past. I hope you are not foolish enough to hold the most recent conclusions of science as truths.


8) Contradiction of a perfect omnipotent God having a struggle with one of his creations (Satan).

If this is literally true, then this is a contradiction. But when did this happen??? Again, who said that G*d is perfect or omnipotent?


9) Contradiction of a perfect omnipotent God needing our love.

When did this happen??? Define the needs of a perfect omnipotent being. Or better yet, define love.


10) Contradiction of a perfect God to create us to use logic and then expect us to take him on faith.
when did this happen??? Even if true, this is not contradictory, it is ironic.


11) Contradiction of a perfect omnipotent God showing surprise and forgetting things as seen in the Old Testament.

Would be a contradiction if it had happened, but I don’t believe it did and you have no proof that it did. Have you ever heard of a rhetorical question??? Yeah, I’m sure Aristotle wasn’t the first to think of one.



12) Contradiction of a loving God sending us to Hell.

My mother is a very loving person; but if you were to spat in her face, I’m sure she wouldn’t show much love to you. Not a contradiction.


This is the tip of the iceberg.

Oh noooes!



[edit on 9/26/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   

I could go on all day but I won't because it doesn't serve any real purpose. You arn't going to look at anything I say in the perspective of seeking truth, but rather in the perspective of trying to prove me wrong and defend your belief which has no evidence.

Baseless assumptions.


If the Bible is the word of God or if the Bible is an accurate description of God, then the contradictions stand.

So . . . if number 8 is true, if you merely miswrote or loosely used words in number 2, and if we knew the needs of an omnipotent being and the subjective truth about love; those possible contradictions stand.


If God is not the God of the Bible, then one might be able to defend these things
Seems I’m able to defend these “things” through logic and epistemology without even considering “G*ds’” affiliation with the Judeo-Christian writings.


A deity is more complicated than a coin.

Which is why I’m using a coin analogy, it’s easier to understand.


First of all, why not any other of the 3000 gods?

Why not



We start off with 1/3000 chance.

Chance of what? That we should worship that god? That’s assuming that any of those gods are real. . .


We look at science, and the contradictions I've named above, and the God as depicted in the Bible falls drasticly.

Might I remind you that science also changes with every paradigm shift. We’re long overdue for one in physics and the next shift may support the flying spaghetti monster. Don’t put your faith in science; especially when its zealots are looking for nothing more than funding and maintaining the status quoi.


I can't give you an exact number, but the liklihood that God exists is the same probability as Zeus, as we have no evidence to state otherwise.

That’s why you use coin analogies instead of rambling on. However, G*ds’ probability of existence is actually greater than that of Zeus’. The Judeo-Christian G*d might be on par with that of the Greek god Khaos in this respect.

The reasoning here is that Zeus’ existence, even when accepting the premise that he can exist within both theologies, is reliant on at least one of the other two primordial deities subsisting; concomitantly or otherwise.


Originally posted by JPhish
If an all powerful being lies to you and wants to conceal that it is lying to you. It doesn’t matter anyway.



Originally posted by TruthParadox
Why?

Because an all powerful being can do whatever it pleases.


[edit on 9/26/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   

How do you know that you arn't worshiping the Devil?

Considering that eating or not eating a particular food at a particular time is considered a form of worship in many religions. I could be worshiping the flying spaghetti monster just because I eat pasta, but not meatballs, on fridays. But no one knows these things.

I don’t know what foods I’m allowed or not allowed to eat in order to “worship” or not “worship” SATAN; but considering I do not inadvertently perform any other form of known cultus worship besides consuming food to live. I think it’s safe to say that the chances I worship SATAN are pretty slim.


If you abandon logic of the physical and take into account all the possibilities of the spiritual, for all we know, the Devil locked God up in a cage and is tricking us into worshiping him.

You don’t have to abandon logic of the physical to envision this scenario. Although you’re talking about internal suppositions of metaphysical and theological entities; your external reasoning skills, while not particularly necessary, are still of use; because these entities would still subsist within essential ontology.


I don't believe God or the Devil exist.

Irrelevant; but thanks for sharing.



I am simply stating that when you take logic out of the physical and try to put it into something you can't know anything about, anything is possible.

I caught that the first time. But now you contradict yourself . . .

here


A perfect omnipotent God would not ask us to do this for obvious reasons.

A perfect omnipotent G*d would fall into this place where you claim anything is possible. Ergo these “reasons” are not obvious, because they can be anything; and you also cannot presume to know the motives or will of such an entity.


I make perfect sense as seen by the fact that you can't respond in a logical manner to disprove what I say.

You’re already, claiming to be able to achieve a state of perfection, and also making baseless assertions as to the likelihood of future events while insulting my intelligence? Thanks.


It's his(G*ds) responsibility (to tell us he exists), because otherwise we get sent to Hell for using logic instead of blind faith.

Really???


if God puts us on this planet with no physical evidence of him, and then sends us to Hell for not believing in him, then he is playing odds for the purpose of playing odds.
It’s quite a bold statement to say that there is no physical evidence. Have you visited every inch of this planet? Better yet, how can you be so sure that the evidence is not right under your nose? Or behind it



We have free will, but it doesn't matter because some people obviously do not have the information to make what you would consider to be the correct choice.

I’ll agree that we have “free will”, but I don’t consider any action or thought, correct over another.


How hard would it be for an all powerful God to give us some kind of evidence of his existence?


How hard? Not relevant when considering an all-powerful G*d. Because there is no effort needed at all . . .


[edit on 9/26/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish


Contradictions:
1) Contradiction of a perfect omnipotent God creating a flawed world.

Who said that G*d is a perfect omnipotent being? Who said that the world is flawed??? Even if both were the case; this is still not a contradiction. Let’s delve deeper . . .


Christians say he is a perfect omnipotent God.
Our world is flawed because it is not perfect.
It does not match the creation of a perfect omnipotent God.


Originally posted by JPhish
Perfection can only be addressed by philosophical means because we have no instrument capable of determining anything’s perfection, or lack there of. Philosophically speaking, something being imperfect is not a requisite for it to yield a product of imperfection.


Think of it like a container. The most perfect something can be is the best case scenario which fits in that container. God created our world and therefor we have a 'container' to base what is perfect and what is not. Our world does not live up to a perfect God's creation.


Originally posted by JPhish

2) Contradiction of an omnipotent God being tricked by his creation (Satan) as if he didn't see it coming.


When did an omnipotent G*d get tricked by “his” creation exactly? Regardless, something that is omnipotent can be deceived; something that is omniscient cannot. Define your terms! This is only possibly a contradiction.


Satan rebelled against God. If God is all knowing then he would never have created a being which would later rebel against him unless he spawned that evil. If he spawned that evil then he is not pure good like Christians claim. You can't have it both ways. He can not be all knowing AND pure good. It doesn't work.


Originally posted by JPhish

3) Contradiction of an infinite being creating something. If he was infinite, then he would contradict himself in creating something.

You need to brush up on the concept of infinity. Infinity deals with limits and boundaries.
In laymen’s terms and in relation to math, if oo was a “real” “number”; any real numbers added or subtracted from oo still equal oo. Since the mass of the universe can purportedly be measured using real numbers (around 1.6 × 1055 kg). The destruction or creation of the universe is inconsequential to oo.



Christians claim God is infinite as in all encompassing. If he is all encompassing, then he would have no need or want to create anything. Humans have a desire to create because we do not yet obtain it. An infinite being would possess all and would contradict itself in creating anything.


Originally posted by JPhish

4) Contradiction of the God of the Old Testament being completely different than the God of the New Testament.
How is G*d contradicting “himself” here? The portrayal of G*d in the New and Old Testament is linear in relation to time and perception . . .


Read God's commandments to us mere mortals in the Old Testament and compare it to the New Testament. In the OT, it's completely fine to kill your enemies if they disagree with you. In the NT, you are supposed to love these same people. An infinite, all knowing, never changing God would not do this.


Originally posted by JPhish

5) Hundreds, if not thousands, of contradictions in the Bible which can not be explained.
considering only 1 out of your first 4 proposed “contradictions” are even capable of being contradictions; I’m going to assume you’re off your mark with that calculation. But please, give me a small number, or any number, that you can provide evidence for.


What I layed out were contradictions, you merely didn't understand them.
www.ffrf.org...
There's a good site for some biblical contradictions. Once your done with that, google 'biblical contradictions' for more.


[edit on 26-9-2008 by TruthParadox]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

6) Contradiction of a creator judging his creation for how he himself made his creation.

Again, not a contradiction; anyone can judge anything that they can perceive, regardless as to whom created it or even if they themselves created it. I can draw a picture right now and judge it as poor, great, etc.


It is not a contradiction on God's existence, but rather a contradiction in logic. You could judge your art, but would you be judging the ink on the paper or would you be judging your performance? This was my point. God Judges the ink on the paper for being ink on the paper. If he made us the way we are and he is omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, etc, then he should judge his work, not us for being the ink on the paper as we were created to be. So how many artists do you know that judge the ink for being ink, or the charcoal for being charcoal, or the paint for being paint?


Originally posted by JPhish

7) Contradiction of the Bible and scientific evidence. The Earth is not 6,000 years old, it is millions of years old, and there is proof of this.

When did the bible claim that the earth is 6,000 years old? I must have missed that part. Even if it did; science has been wrong many times in the past. I hope you are not foolish enough to hold the most recent conclusions of science as truths.


True, the Bible never directly states the earth is 6,000 years old. This was less an attack on the Bible and more on the common belief of scholars who have interpreted the Bible. And you say that science has been wrong in the past. True, but more than ever we should trust what the data shows us today because we have the technology to back it up.


Originally posted by JPhish

8) Contradiction of a perfect omnipotent God having a struggle with one of his creations (Satan).

If this is literally true, then this is a contradiction. But when did this happen???


You said "When did this happen?". Have you read the Bible? There is supposedly a struggle taking place right now between God and Satan despite the fact that God is omnipotent.


Originally posted by JPhish
Again, who said that G*d is perfect or omnipotent?


This site explains it: www.cogwriter.com...

If you want the short answer:
“Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!” (Revelation 19:6)

And:

Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."


Originally posted by JPhish

9) Contradiction of a perfect omnipotent God needing our love.

When did this happen??? Define the needs of a perfect omnipotent being. Or better yet, define love.


I shouldn't have said need, I should have said want. I made a mistake there. It's a commonly held belief in Christianity that God desires our love and fellowship. But an infinite being would not desire anything because he would already be 'complete'.


Originally posted by JPhish

10) Contradiction of a perfect God to create us to use logic and then expect us to take him on faith.
when did this happen??? Even if true, this is not contradictory, it is ironic.


This is another logical contradiction. He could do this, but it would be illogical. Seeing as God is all knowing, I doubt he would make such an illogical decission.
Now you say 'when did this happen?' and I hope you are kidding.
It is written many times that we must take God on faith.
There is no physical evidence for God.
Humans are physical and interpret things through physical senses.


Originally posted by JPhish

11) Contradiction of a perfect omnipotent God showing surprise and forgetting things as seen in the Old Testament.

Would be a contradiction if it had happened, but I don’t believe it did and you have no proof that it did. Have you ever heard of a rhetorical question??? Yeah, I’m sure Aristotle wasn’t the first to think of one.


Exodus 2:24 "So God heard their groaning; and God remembered His covenant"

"God Remembered Rachel" (Gen. 30:22)

"And the Lord Remembered Her" (I Sam. 1:19)

This is a weaker argument because you could argue against what the words mean, so I'll leave it at that.


Originally posted by JPhish

12) Contradiction of a loving God sending us to Hell.

My mother is a very loving person; but if you were to spat in her face, I’m sure she wouldn’t show much love to you. Not a contradiction.


But would she send me to eternal Hell? No crime fits that punishment. An all knowing & loving God would know this.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf

I'm desperately looking for the answer to two questions:

1) Does a God(s) exist? and,
2) Is there an afterlife?



God does exist and anyone can prove that for themselves at anytime in real physical terms, a person simply needs to be shown how and want to do it.

However religion is a lie, which is where the idea of life after death is most often generationally promoted and perpetuated.

There is no life after death that is why it is called death and we need be raised from it, because there is no life left in you when you are dead and in the grave.

I personally find it one of the greatest ironies of human history that religion is the main supporter of the original lie of life after death.

If God does not raise us from the dead then none of us are going to be alive after death.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Christians say he is a perfect omnipotent God.
Our world is flawed because it is not perfect.
It does not match the creation of a perfect omnipotent God.

Ok some Christians say this. I’m sure that non Christians say this. Not everyone falls into neat little categories; that’s all I’m trying to say . . . I would hate to think your position on whether or not G*d is perfect or exists at all is reliant on what some people think.


Think of it like a container. The most perfect something can be is the best case scenario which fits in that container. God created our world and therefor we have a 'container' to base what is perfect and what is not. Our world does not live up to a perfect God's creation.
Interesting analogy; but I’m not seeing how “we” as a collective can possibly gauge the perfection of the universe. Human beings have subjective views of the world. What might need to be added or taken away from this world to make it perfect in your mind, may render it extremely flawed in another's.


Satan rebelled against God. If God is all knowing then he would never have created a being which would later rebel against him unless he spawned that evil. If he spawned that evil then he is not pure good like Christians claim. You can't have it both ways. He can not be all knowing AND pure good. It doesn't work.

Why would G*d not create something that would rebel against him? You’re failing to explain why this entity would not do this.

“Curses” can arise as a result of “miracles”; and visa versa; good and evil are subjective. For something to be good it need only be agreeable to the person deciding its value. Since G*d would be the final decider of what is good. “He” could annihilate everything on this earth right now and it would be a good idea. If “he” thinks it s good idea; it’s a good idea. It’s a purely good idea actually . .

the definitions of good and bad are dependant on G*ds will the same way that G*d can not sin. The act of sinning is any deviation from G*ds will. Since the act is reliant upon what he wants; G*d is directly incapable of sin. The same way G*d is incapable of evil . . . philosophically and hypothetically, if G*d turned you into a def, blinde, mute, and dumb paraplegic, it would be a good thing.


Christians claim God is infinite as in all encompassing. If he is all encompassing, then he would have no need or want to create anything. Humans have a desire to create because we do not yet obtain it. An infinite being would possess all and would contradict itself in creating anything.
I already showed that based on our current mathematical knowledge, “infinity” is the improper word to use for your argument. So I’ll just skip that.

All encompassing simply means that everything “he” does create is connected to/a part him. That’s all it means. Your previous argument was flawed and the new one you’re presenting is not valid.


Read God's commandments to us mere mortals in the Old Testament and compare it to the New Testament. In the OT, it's completely fine to kill your enemies if they disagree with you. In the NT, you are supposed to love these same people. An infinite, all knowing, never changing God would not do this.

Again . . . The portrayal of G*d in the New and Old Testament is linear in relation to time and OUR perception . . . G*d is incapable of being unchanging based on our own perception of reality because our perceptions are constantly changing in time . . . tell me, Mathematically speaking . . . is the number 3 the same as the numbers 5438? 2139128721412231? oo? Those are different numbers which infinity encompass’s.


What I layed out were contradictions, you merely didn't understand them.
www.ffrf.org...
There's a good site for some biblical contradictions. Once your done with that, google 'biblical contradictions' for more.

I have a good site that shows that world is flat too. Try using your own brain instead pulling things off websites. Your basic misunderstanding of these flawed arguments is not boding well for you.



It is not a contradiction on God's existence, but rather a contradiction in logic.

Well you were not supposed to be presenting contradictions to logic. You were suppose to be presenting points in time where G*d purportedly contradicts itself.


You could judge your art, but would you be judging the ink on the paper or would you be judging your performance?

Perhaps both; if I paint something and conclude that the paint I mixed together was poor, or had become too dry. It would have nothing to do with my performance of actually painting. But the materials I obtained or created being poor or becoming poor as a result of time, change or even lack of consistency.


This was my point. God Judges the ink on the paper for being ink on the paper.
that’s what it is.


If he made us the way we are

i believe that what we are is what we make of ourselves.


(if)he is omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, etc, then he should judge his work, not us for being the ink on the paper as we were created to be.
So now you know the rules that would fall upon an infinite, omnipotent and omniscient being? I’m sorry but wouldn’t you have to be the latter in order to know this???


So how many artists do you know that judge the ink for being ink, or the charcoal for being charcoal, or the paint for being paint?

I actually do have one friend who is an artist. He judges his inks, paints, acrylics, papers and canvas sometimes more than the actual work itself. Any artist knows that materials used or created during the process are just as important as the technique or overall composition of the piece.


True, the Bible never directly states the earth is 6,000 years old. This was less an attack on the Bible and more on the common belief of scholars who have interpreted the Bible. And you say that science has been wrong in the past. True, but more than ever we should trust what the data shows us today because we have the technology to back it up.
I doubt the belief the world is 6,000 years old is common. Technology to back what up exactly?


You said "When did this happen?". Have you read the Bible? There is supposedly a struggle taking place right now between God and Satan despite the fact that God is omnipotent.

No, I have never “rehd” the bible much past geneses. But my logic tells me to question the veracity of opinions or beliefs before even attempting to rebut them. But please. Point out in the bible where this struggle is taking place for me.


This site explains it: www.cogwriter.com...

If you want the short answer:
“Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!” (Revelation 19:6)

And:

Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

Great, so in the bible it alludes that G*d may be omnipotent. I know basketball clips from the 90’s where the sports announcers claim that Jordan is too.



I shouldn't have said need, I should have said want. I made a mistake there. It's a commonly held belief in Christianity that God desires our love and fellowship. But an infinite being would not desire anything because he would already be 'complete'.

Thanks for the correction; but again, you need to refer back to the actual definition of infinitely . . . infinity is never complete.

[edit on 10/2/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   

This is another logical contradiction. He could do this, but it would be illogical. Seeing as God is all knowing, I doubt he would make such an illogical decission.

Spock use to tell Kirk he was being illogical all the time; But some how Kirk always came out on top. I’m using this analogy to show how, “just because YOU think it’s illogical, does not mean it is; especially when taking into consideration the one making the decision always comes out on top . . .


It is written many times that we must take God on faith.
There is no physical evidence for God.
Humans are physical and interpret things through physical senses.

You must take anything but your own existence on faith. There is no physical evidence for anything but your own consciousness. Humans as you accept them are physical and interpret things this way. But a senseless comatose patient would disagree.


This is a weaker argument because you could argue against what the words mean, so I'll leave it at that.
No argument here.


But would she send me to eternal Hell? No crime fits that punishment. An all knowing & loving God would know this.

I’m not sure if she would or wouldn’t. Is eternal hell really all that bad? What’s eternal hell anyways? Ever postulate that perhaps those sent to hell would prefer to be there anyway?

sorry it took me so long to respond. I've been busy procrastinating.



[edit on 10/2/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Christians say he is a perfect omnipotent God.
Our world is flawed because it is not perfect.
It does not match the creation of a perfect omnipotent God.

Ok some Christians say this. I’m sure that non Christians say this. Not everyone falls into neat little categories; that’s all I’m trying to say . . . I would hate to think your position on whether or not G*d is perfect or exists at all is reliant on what some people think.


But it's not based on "what some people think". I'm starting to understand how little of the Bibe you have actually read.

How many times must I point out the verses of the Bible to a Christian who is trying to defend his/her belief IN the Bible?
Rather ironic isn't it?

"As for God, His way is Perfect," 2 Samuel 22:31

"His work is perfect" Deuteronomy 32:4

"when that which is perfect has come"(1 Corinthians 13:10)

"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. " (Psalm 18:30)

And I have already given you the verses which say God is omnipotent.
I suggest you read the book which you trust your eternal soul in
.


Originally posted by JPhish

Think of it like a container. The most perfect something can be is the best case scenario which fits in that container. God created our world and therefor we have a 'container' to base what is perfect and what is not. Our world does not live up to a perfect God's creation.
Interesting analogy; but I’m not seeing how “we” as a collective can possibly gauge the perfection of the universe. Human beings have subjective views of the world. What might need to be added or taken away from this world to make it perfect in your mind, may render it extremely flawed in another's.


But the Bible SAYS God is perfect. Also, you are trying to argue the definition of perfect instead of the argument at hand. That's a very weak stance.


Originally posted by JPhish

Satan rebelled against God. If God is all knowing then he would never have created a being which would later rebel against him unless he spawned that evil. If he spawned that evil then he is not pure good like Christians claim. You can't have it both ways. He can not be all knowing AND pure good. It doesn't work.

Why would G*d not create something that would rebel against him? You’re failing to explain why this entity would not do this.


Because, that would negate him being perfect =o.
(Matthew 12:25). 'Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand'

Couldn't have said it better myself, Jesus.


Originally posted by JPhish
“Curses” can arise as a result of “miracles”; and visa versa; good and evil are subjective. For something to be good it need only be agreeable to the person deciding its value. Since G*d would be the final decider of what is good. “He” could annihilate everything on this earth right now and it would be a good idea. If “he” thinks it s good idea; it’s a good idea. It’s a purely good idea actually . .

the definitions of good and bad are dependant on G*ds will the same way that G*d can not sin. The act of sinning is any deviation from G*ds will. Since the act is reliant upon what he wants; G*d is directly incapable of sin. The same way G*d is incapable of evil . . . philosophically and hypothetically, if G*d turned you into a def, blinde, mute, and dumb paraplegic, it would be a good thing.


How much of the Bible have you read again?
Have you forgotten that we ATE from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? This is why we are ashamed when we are naked, remember? The effects are supposedly still with us today. We ARE (according to the Bible) able to determine what is good and evil JUST AS GOD.


Originally posted by JPhish
All encompassing simply means that everything “he” does create is connected to/a part him. That’s all it means. Your previous argument was flawed and the new one you’re presenting is not valid.


Oh is that what it means? So then Satan is a part of God since he created him?
Deuteronomy 32:4 "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."

It says he is without iniquity.
The Devil is NOT without iniquity.
Therefor, God can not encompass all without also encompassing the Devil and therefor iniquity.

Again, you can't have it both ways, but you seem to want to so bad that you ignore what the Bible AND logic say.


Originally posted by JPhish
Again . . . The portrayal of G*d in the New and Old Testament is linear in relation to time and OUR perception . . . G*d is incapable of being unchanging based on our own perception of reality because our perceptions are constantly changing in time . . . tell me, Mathematically speaking . . . is the number 3 the same as the numbers 5438? 2139128721412231? oo? Those are different numbers which infinity encompass’s.


But if God was infinite, and we think of it in numbers, then he would also encompase all the negative number, correct?
Yet the Bible says God is good, therefor he would NOT encompase the negative.
Killing a gay person is negative.
Killing someone because they never heard of God is negative.
Killing your own child if he/she rebels against you is negative.
And I KNOW that those are negative because I ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, right?



Originally posted by JPhish

What I layed out were contradictions, you merely didn't understand them.
www.ffrf.org...
There's a good site for some biblical contradictions. Once your done with that, google 'biblical contradictions' for more.

I have a good site that shows that world is flat too. Try using your own brain instead pulling things off websites.


I would have listed them here but I did not have enough room to so I gave you a link. Like all creationists, you ignore them. I didn't expect you to do otherwise.


Originally posted by JPhish
Your basic misunderstanding of these flawed arguments is not boding well for you.

Your narrow mindedness is not boding well for you.



No offense, but I'd rather debate against someone who actually knows what the Bible says. I'm getting tired of looking up these verses for you.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

You could judge your art, but would you be judging the ink on the paper or would you be judging your performance?

Perhaps both; if I paint something and conclude that the paint I mixed together was poor, or had become too dry. It would have nothing to do with my performance of actually painting. But the materials I obtained or created being poor or becoming poor as a result of time, change or even lack of consistency.


But you would NOT be judging the ink that you yourself chose. You would be judging that you chose the wrong ink. Do you judge 0 for being 0? Do you judge a pancake for being a pancake?
If you say yes to the above than I'd rather not argue with you anymore, as logic seems to bounce right off of you.



Originally posted by JPhish

If he made us the way we are

i believe that what we are is what we make of ourselves.


Then your belief goes against the Bible as the Bible says God is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then when he created us, he created us to be us. If you write down on a paper 1+1=2 then you are responsible for writting 1+1=2, not the paper.


Originally posted by JPhish

(if)he is omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, etc, then he should judge his work, not us for being the ink on the paper as we were created to be.
So now you know the rules that would fall upon an infinite, omnipotent and omniscient being? I’m sorry but wouldn’t you have to be the latter in order to know this???


Due to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I know that judging your creation for what you create it to be is evil, as the creator is responsible for his/her creation.
Also, it makes no sense for him to judge us for how he created us.


Originally posted by JPhish

So how many artists do you know that judge the ink for being ink, or the charcoal for being charcoal, or the paint for being paint?

I actually do have one friend who is an artist. He judges his inks, paints, acrylics, papers and canvas sometimes more than the actual work itself. Any artist knows that materials used or created during the process are just as important as the technique or overall composition of the piece.


Yes but your friend did not create the ink to be the right ink, he is 'judging' it because it's not what he expected or wanted it to be (ie bad brand). But God is different, because he's omniscient and omnipotent, remember?
So essentially, your friend isn't judging the ink, he's judging the companies creation of the faulty ink - as it should be.


Originally posted by JPhish
Technology to back what up exactly?


That the Earth is older than 6,000 years old.


Originally posted by JPhish

You said "When did this happen?". Have you read the Bible? There is supposedly a struggle taking place right now between God and Satan despite the fact that God is omnipotent.

No, I have never “rehd” the bible much past geneses. But my logic tells me to question the veracity of opinions or beliefs before even attempting to rebut them. But please. Point out in the bible where this struggle is taking place for me.


No, you're right. God and Satan are really friends deep down, there is no struggle. All of the talk in the Bible about spiritual warfare is all a pile of crap. You're right and the Bible is wrong.
Sorry, but if you want to know what the Bible says, then look it up yourself. I'm not going to hunt down scriptures anymore.
It's a waste of time anyway because you'll just say "oh no that's not what it means, it really means - blah blah blah".


Originally posted by JPhish

This site explains it: www.cogwriter.com...

If you want the short answer:
“Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!” (Revelation 19:6)

And:

Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."


Great, so in the bible it alludes that G*d may be omnipotent.


No, it doesn't allude to anything, it states very clearly and plainly that God is omnipotent.


Originally posted by JPhish
I know basketball clips from the 90’s where the sports announcers claim that Jordan is too.


So what are you trying to convince me of exactly? That the Bible is no more authoritative than a 1990's sports announcer?
I already knew this to be true, but I didn't think you would agree with me here.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
But it's not based on "what some people think". I'm starting to understand how little of the Bibe you have actually read.

How many times must I point out the verses of the Bible to a Christian who is trying to defend his/her belief IN the Bible?
Rather ironic isn't it?

You should really stop making assumptions.


I suggest you read the book which you trust your eternal soul in
.

Aah ah! baseless assumptions a plenty!


But the Bible SAYS God is perfect. Also, you are trying to argue the definition of perfect instead of the argument at hand. That's a very weak stance.

No, it’s actually logical deduction. You must have comprehension of terms/“objecthood” or they are not ponderable.


Originally posted by JPhish
Why would G*d create something that would rebel against him? You’re failing to explain why this entity would not do this.



Originally posted by TruthParadox
Because, that would negate him being perfect =o.

You would need to objectively define what would make G*d perfect before you can question possible imperfections. You cannot do this therefore this is an assumption.


How much of the Bible have you read again?
Have you forgotten that we ATE from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? This is why we are ashamed when we are naked, remember? The effects are supposedly still with us today. We ARE (according to the Bible) able to determine what is good and evil JUST AS GOD.
this really doesn’t have anything to do with what I was addressing, but to digress . . . the bible claims that we know of good and evil. Not that we can determine it as G*d does. Philosophically; We only have subjective discernment of what is good. But G*d decides what is and is nit good. There is a difference.


So then Satan is a part of God since he created him?

If one is to take the word encompassing in that way; Then yes.


It says he is without iniquity.
The Devil is NOT without iniquity.
Therefor, God can not encompass all without also encompassing the Devil and therefor iniquity.

Again, you can't have it both ways, but you seem to want to so bad that you ignore what the Bible AND logic say.


Actually, logic says that you are mistaken. In relation to this tract, G*d would be a Strong Emergence. To explain this would be lengthy, so I suggest you look it up.


But if God was infinite, and we think of it in numbers, then he would also encompase all the negative number, correct?
I said “real numbers” before; So yes.


Yet the Bible says God is good, therefor he would NOT encompase the negative.
This is subjective before anything else . . . I actually like negative numbers more than the positive. I think they are better and more agreeable to my nature. For me negative numbers are “good”.


Killing a gay person is negative.

No, this is subjective

Killing someone because they never heard of God is negative.

subjective . . .

Killing your own child if he/she rebels against you is negative.

subjective . . .

And I KNOW that those are negative because I ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, right?
doubtful; and hypothetically you only have the capability of knowing what is “good” and “evil”.


I would have listed them here but I did not have enough room to so I gave you a link.
you miss my point . .i don’t wish for you to share your material off other websites AT ALL. I wouldn’t want you to repost excerpts from articles here, any more than I would want to see links to those websites you might draw them from. I want you to use your own logic and reasoning skills. Not someone else’s with which whom you happen to think you agree with at the moment.



Like all creationists, you ignore them. I didn't expect you to do otherwise.

Another baseless assumption . . .


Your narrow mindedness is not boding well for you.

Ad hominum under the guise of jest. Admirable . . .


No offense, but I'd rather debate against someone who actually knows what the Bible says. I'm getting tired of looking up these verses for you.

Well I believe no one knows apologetics on this site better than AshleyD. Shall I fetch her for us?



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   

But you would NOT be judging the ink that you yourself chose. You would be judging that you chose the wrong ink.

No. What may be the right ink in the present, can be tainted by time in the future. “right” and “wrong” are not always timeless.

vREADv

Originally posted by JPhish (paraphrased)
It would have to do with the materials I obtained or created being poor or becoming poor as a result of time, change, or even lack of consistency.

^READ^


Originally posted by TruthParadox
Do you judge 0 for being 0? Do you judge a pancake for being a pancake?
In relation to what???


If you say yes to the above than I'd rather not argue with you anymore, as logic seems to bounce right off of you.



Originally posted by JPhish
i believe that what we are is what we make of ourselves.



Then your belief goes against the Bible as the Bible says God is omnipotent.
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then when he created us, he created us to be us. If you write down on a paper 1+1=2 then you are responsible for writting 1+1=2, not the paper.
No, because this line of reasoning is flawed. Mathematically, accepting the premise of “free will” (which you do) G*d gives us choices. “he” says to us. “Choose” “1 or 2” then again, “2 or 3” and so on and so forth. We choose in accordance. Our choices shape and mold our reality and who we are . . .


Due to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I know that judging your creation for what you create it to be is evil, as the creator is responsible for his/her creation.
Also, it makes no sense for him to judge us for how he created us.
The serpent in geneses is LYING. The serpent says that Adam and Eve upon eating from the tree of knowledge would be as G*d. It is blatantly and obviously a lie based on the way the rest of the story carries out. Your entire tract is based on what a deceitful serpent said. You have knowledge of good and evil but as I expressed before. You only have the capability of knowing what is “good” and “evil”.



Yes but your friend did not create the ink to be the right ink, he is 'judging' it because it's not what he expected or wanted it to be (ie bad brand).But God is different, because he's omniscient and omnipotent, remember?
So essentially, your friend isn't judging the ink, he's judging the companies creation of the faulty ink - as it should be.
my friend makes his ink and paint from scratch . . . that’s why I used him as an example . . . he may mix them “perfectly” (to use the word loosely), but time can always taint it and make it un-agreeable.


the Earth is older than 6,000 years old.

Mmmm tasty . . . red herring anyone? I have not once presumed to know the age of the earth . . . nor does the bible or any other purported word of G*d.



No, you're right. God and Satan are really friends deep down, there is no struggle. All of the talk in the Bible about spiritual warfare is all a pile of crap. You're right and the Bible is wrong.
Sorry, but if you want to know what the Bible says, then look it up yourself. I'm not going to hunt down scriptures anymore.
It's a waste of time anyway because you'll just say "oh no that's not what it means, it really means - blah blah blah".
It’s not that I want to know what the bible says. I want you to back up your claims, regardless of their validity.


Originally posted by JPhish
Great, so in the bible it alludes that G*d may be omnipotent.



Originally posted by TruthParadox
No, it doesn't allude to anything, it states very clearly and plainly that God is omnipotent.
we’re dealing with a translated text so I think it best not to deal in absolutes. Interpretation of translations change as our understanding of language increases. Next week the translations could read something completely different. But I wouldn’t disagree with you that G*d as is depicted In the Bible was omnipotent and omnipresent . I’d just be a little less sure of myself.


So what are you trying to convince me of exactly? That the Bible is no more authoritative than a 1990's sports announcer? I already knew this to be true, but I didn't think you would agree with me here.
Although possibly true, that’s not what I’m trying to convince you of. I’m pointing out that words and their meanings are often lost to the vernacular of their time. Etymology holds this to be true.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join