Plunkies
If you don't know everything then you don't know everything.
He knows which applications of free will gives which results - what application you will actually do, that depends on you, hence free will
“ Its not clear how exhibitions of pride, insolence and envy directed towards god amongst conditioned living entities are nurtured and maintained by god - on the contrary it seems to suggest they are nurtured by the conditioned living entities ”
He's an omnipotent being you tool, he could instantly fix it himself without sending people to hell.
I wasn't aware that he sent us to hell - I thought we went there by utilising our free will incorrectly (BTW - I don't operate out of a xtian theistic paradigm - hell is not eternal, but a little time there feels like along time)
And that still doesn't answer the statement. Why are the "exhibitions" incorrect if they were created by god anyway? How can an omnipotent, omniscient being suck so much at this "creation" stuff?
On the contrary the universe is running just fine, despite the earnest endeavours of humans to screw it up
“ Then your insincerity must be maing you deaf.
Is preschool right?
Is university right?
Or are they both right according to definitions of time place and circumstance? ”
Are you saying every religion is right, from greek mythology to ancient egyptian faiths?
in terms of every bonafide religion, yes
just like in terms of every bonafide institution of learning, yes (although you may have more to learn at uni than preschool, depending on your level of advancement of course)
Does the sun really rest beneath the throne of Allah every night?
I imagine that if you read a PHD theisis on Semantic decline you also wouldn't understand much about it either
If these faiths are incorrect then how can you prove it?
I think your typing error was a freudian slip
How can you prove any of them?
It requires training - just like how can anyone prove an electron without training
And how can all of them contain so much incorrect information and still be considered the word of god?
Ok lets take fire - it has three qualities (at least) - heat, smoke and light - if a person says fire is hot, and another says fire is smokey, and the last says fire is light, are all these statements irrevocably incongruent? INotherwords if fire has at least three qualities, what to speak of god.
If all the information that's provable today consistently turns out to be wrong then how ignorant do I have to be to assume the rest will be correct?
Details may differ but principles do not
How many times do you have to hear the church say "Oh this isn't to be taken literally" and "Oh this needs to be read in historical context" before you realize the scriptures will always have to be retroactively fit to meet reality.
Until you come to the point of knowing the difference between a detail and a principle.
“ This is why I gave the analogy of the pharmacy - unless you seek profesional advice it is impossible to distinguish between what is a detail and what is a principle. ”
Exactly. And conveniently the only "profesional" advice would be god, making it impossible to know which part of the contradiction we should be listening to, enabling the scripture to fit whatever you want it to.
No - professional advice is one who understands scripture - thats the point - in conditioned life -we are too much of a doofus to approach god directly ....
Yay!! The bible is always right!!!!!
(or always wrong, depending if your glass is half full or half empty)
..... as evidenced by your analysis of the bible
So who knows what religion really is? The peaceful muslims or the terrorists? Because according to the quran they're both technically right...
Once again - there are details and there are principles - atheists and neophyte theists tend to get hung up on this all the time
Could you find me two scientists, one who believes in electrons and one who does not? Could you find me two scientists with completely different definitions of the word "electron"? Could you find me two scientists who uphold superstitions that the electron does various other nonrelated things, having no proof of that fact but believing it with no doubts that he could possibly be wrong?
So in principle, scientists agree about electrons, when it comes to the details of an electron, like how it interacts with other phenomena or their causes , then you get a divergency of opinions - the same in religion - principles and details
And no, a priest does not have more knowledge than you or I. We all have read from the same obsolete book(s).
So pick up a book on advanced physics and become a physicist if you are so richly endowed with intelligence
There is no evidence and no proof arguing the validity of said books either.
I imagine a high school drop out would say the same thing if they picked a book up about electrons
Unlike the electron that can be proven without a shadow of a doubt.
The high school drop out is still doubtful, namely because they label physicists as "eggheads" and the books they write as "full of crap"
And it's not the dropout that has anything to do with the existence of the electron, it's the evidence that speaks for itself.
evidence can only be detected by qualified persons - at least thats why the police have "detectives"
God however has no evidence, and accusing someone who does not believe in something that has no evidence to back it up of being a "high-school dropout" is really an insult to the majority of the brilliant minds of today.
Its just the nature of epistemology - whetehr you are talking about something scientific or theistic - knowledge becomes revealed to one who accepts the process of knowledge
I'm guessing if you asked any of your "intelligent", "advanced", and "cultured" "scores of persons" they would say they take the existence of god on FAITH and not on any evidence (unlike the electron).
Thats right - you're guessing
It really doesn't matter how advanced or cultured or intelligent you are, weaknesses of the mind are difficult to shake and brainwashing from childhood is not easily discarded.
on the contrary - a person who is highly analytical is resistant to cheap emotive arguments - like so far it seems that you have been brainwashed by atheism - the evidence is that its very difficult for you to uphold a rational argument on the subject without sliding into abusive terms and emmotional appeals
“
So if a parent tells their children to not cross the road and they cross the road anyway and get hit by a car they forced their child to listen to them?
THE PARENT IS DRIVING THE CAR!
No - the parent is not driving the car - the parent told their child not to cross the road
Stop using irrelevant metaphors to make your broken logic appear reasonable.
I guess it would be helpful if you read them properly - it would save me the effort of having to post them twice
Of course you don't have to believe in physics to study about them.
Well if you don't believe in physics why on earth would you apply yourself to the rigorous discipline o studying it
In the same way a fundie christian doesn't have to believe in evolution to study about it.
well a fundie xtian doesn't study anything much
The evidence speaks for itself, and whether you believe it or not the evidence remains. Physics are not in dispute.
No - the evidence only speaks to those who are qualified to "detect" the evidence
You can't verify the validity or invalidity of a claim that can't be proven.
Exactly - thats why you cannot venture in to the subject of god - thats why training is a prerequisite
Believing in something before proof is given is opposite to common sense? I hope you never get jury duty.
Obviously you didn't read my statements about how training enables one to come to the platform of proof - belief anables one to come to the platform of training
“ If I answered this question how would you be able to test whether I was lying or not?
In other words what frame work of theory do you have to work out of to determine whether god is perceivable or not? ”
God is omnipotent. If God spoke to you, simply ask him something that can't be known but can be proven. For example, you could ask him the coordinates of exactly where Amelia Earhart crashed. Then you could check those coordinates and tada, proven.
This is your argument - BTW - I think omniscient is the word you are after - once again you are revealing your strong level of training on the subject
P1 - God is said to be omniscient
P2 - God must know all sorts of trivia
conclusion - if god doesn't answer trivial questions that proves he is not omniscient
I guess from here you would have to establish that god is just itching to answer our mundane questions because he is just suffering like hell because we do not think he is omniscient.
Inother words the attitude of your enquiry into god's nature (insolent, irrelevant enquiry to a superior) undermines the premise of a pure relationship between god and the living entity (ie a pure devotee would not waste the remarkable opportunity to converse with god in such mindless blather - at the very least there is no evidence of saintly persons in scripture having such innane converstaions with god)
“ How does one know about the way of understanding an electron? ”
Test it? Experiment? Go over the proof? All the ways you can't understand a fictional being?
Inother words training enables one to establish whether an entity is fictional or not (since testing and experimenting is not too fruitful for one without a foundation of theory etc) - so what is the training you have that enables you to say god is fictional?
“ Something along the lines "If you follow a process you get a result" ”
Well god sure is a vague asshole, and you sure are a self-delusional nutcase.
You sure would make a great fundamental xtian - that doesn't happen to be the "training" you received to know god in the first place is it?
