You're not telling anybody anything new by saying that.
On the plus side, at least we're starting to have a conversation now.
A world with a loving God.
- Thread starter Xelasnave.1947
- Start date
On the plus side, at least we're starting to have a conversation now.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
I'm pretty sure it was the talking serpent who tempted Adam into knowing good and evil, as God does, the rest of the bible is the manifestation of the hatred, war, and violence in mankind, and God. All leading up to armageddon. We remember Jesus who taught non-resistence (to not fight back), and the white horse of the apocalypse who conquered just to conquer.
Last edited:
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
So, there is time and not '' absolutely nothing''? And there is a location/space for there to be a potential at?
The virtual particles in your video arise from the uncertainty about the energy content at a location in space over a short period of time. It could be zero or greater than zero.
You seem to want to use the same uncertainly principle to give rise to the Universe from no space and no time, '' absolutely nothing''.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Question: Does the parable I proposed warrant a response from you? Yes, you proposed your own alternate one, but that's not really addressing the one I offered.
Will you continue here or in the new thread?
When you decide a group of people will suffer for an eternity because you have deemed them unworthy simply because they question things, that is indeed hatred of that group of people.
So, Adam is suffering in hell?
But, you sure seem to need it here on Earth. Of course, hating another group of people for no reason other than they question things may not get you into heaven. Are you quite sure this is what Jesus would do? He hates people? Or, does he embrace everyone equally?
Here are the general definitions of hate and skeptical, while both are traits all humans have the capacity to use, they are not related. One can easily be skeptical and not hate, and vice versa, or both at the same time. You are therefore comparing apples with oranges.
Hate - feel intense or passionate dislike of something or someone.
Skeptical - not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
Every person is skeptical, it is a part of human nature to question that which is not convincing. I do it, you do it, everyone does it, perhaps every day of their lives. If someone says they're not skeptical, then they accept and believe everything they see and hear, regardless of how absurd or impossible. If I told you the moon was made of green cheese and you can walk there on a moonbeam made of cheese, would you accept that as fact or would you have doubts?
So, please tell me how you manage to equate being skeptical to hating people so much you believe they'll suffer an eternity?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Have you been to this "Heaven" place? What's it supposed to be like?
I think the one I offered is closer to the situation we find ourselves with the God of the bible than your one was. In other words, for reasons that will probably become apparent in the new thread I started, I don't think your example is applicable in this discussion.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yes, (we) atheists will see the situation from that point of view, but that doesn't preclude theists from seeing this internal logic in the God construct.
Question:
Which parable and analysis will more likely yield you (et al) a better understanding?
- the one where put forth your own view of the situation (and upon analysis, find it wanting)?
- or the one where the challenging point of view is put forth (without the woo claptrap) and we examine issues we don't already have our answers ready for?
How much weight would we give to, say a Fundie, dismissing our model of Darwinian evolution, only to start his own thread, with his own scenario of evolution? He would surely arrive at conclusions that confirmed his beliefs. Doesn't your new thread have the same flaw in its premise?
What is the larger goal of a God discussion? To gain a new understanding? Or to reinforce an atheist's existing stance?
DaveC:
I think that perhaps it might be better if you leave the theists to make their own arguments. They might decide to jump on your bandwagon here, but they might not. We can still discuss your argument on its own merits, of course.
In this case, my own view of the situation is meant to challenge the one you put forward. However, I decided that rather than simply telling you what my views are directly, I'd give you a chance to think it through on your own first.
In this instance, my aim is to compare and contrast two views. If you think - or if any theist things, for that matter - that my example is flawed or relies on a false premise, we can discuss that. Hopefully, as you say, the end result will be that one or both of us gains a new understanding.
Oh. I didn't really answer this:
I think that the one with the most defensible assumptions behind it will yield the better understanding, in the end, in the sense of better conforming to the real world. Parables are stories. Their meaning depends on the context in which they are told and the understanding that the readers/hearers bring to them. They are supposed to teach something valuable, not directly but indirectly.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Would you be comfortable with the method described above if a Fundie asked you how evolution works? They lay out their idea of how it works, and you hold your tongue until you see a flaw?
In my experience, such flaws occur around the first or second word, where they start the story in the middle, pre-seeded with their own preconceptions, rather than at the foundation.
Anyway, I'm holding an ultimately indefensible position, so it weakens my argument for what I see as a flaw in your method.
??
The normal pattern we see when Fundies lay out their understanding of how evolution works (or, more accuately, doesn't work) is that they lay out their incorrect ideas about evolution and then they hold their tongue until somebody who actually knows some science shows why they are wrong.
Isn't this how arguments usually go? One person puts an argument, and it stands until others try to refute it?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
(Well, frankly, I put out an argument, and your response was to start a new thread with your own argument.
)
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Heaven is the universe and nature. You can't go outside of heaven, thus this is heaven as you know it.