lightgigantic said:
Plunkies
He knows which applications of free will gives which results - what application you will actually do, that depends on you, hence free will
He knows the timeline or else he's not omniscient.
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)
He created hell.
On the contrary the universe is running just fine, despite the earnest endeavours of humans to screw it up
You missed the point.
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)
So all religion is true even when they completely contradict each other?
I imagine that if you read a PHD theisis on Semantic decline you also wouldn't understand much about it either
I imagine I wouldn't care one way or the other.
I think your typing error was a freudian slip
It wasn't an error. I assumed you didn't believe in Ra the Sun God. If you don't, if that faith is incorrect, then how can you prove it?
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.
So the earth IS flat and the sun DOES revolve around it? I don't follow.
Details may differ but principles do not
Like slavery and stoning children?
Until you come to the point of knowing the difference between a detail and a principle.
Then why don't you explain it to me....
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 ....
How can anyone other than god possibly understand his contradicting words?
..... as evidenced by your analysis of the bible
My analysis? Read the quotes stupid.
Once again - there are details and there are principles - atheists and neophyte theists tend to get hung up on this all the time
OMG...details and principles, details and principles...
Just admit it. You have nothing.
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
There's no god damn divergence of opinion about whether or not it exists. Furthermore divergence and difference in opinion MUST BE PROVEN BEFORE CONSIDERED FACT.
So pick up a book on advanced physics and become a physicist if you are so richly endowed with intelligence
Thanks for missing the point.
I imagine a high school drop out would say the same thing if they picked a book up about electrons
Again it isn't up to the dropout, it's up to the proof.
The high school drop out is still doubtful, namely because they label physicists as "eggheads" and the books they write as "full of crap"
GET OFF THIS STUPID METAPHOR!! ONE CAN BE PROVEN. THE OTHER CAN NOT.
evidence can only be detected by qualified persons - at least thats why the police have "detectives"
And then the evidence is presented to unqualified persons. The jury. If the evidence cannot be presented then it is not evidence.
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
Damn those scientists for not accepting the process of knowledge. Requiring silly things like "evidence" and "proof". How dare those fools....
Thats right - you're guessing
I have to guess. You've mentioned no one specifically and I obviously can't ask them directly you idiot.
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
What? So I brainwashed myself with my own research and critical thinking? Brainwashing implies something being forced upon you, like mythology being presented as fact to a child who can't determine the validity of such information on his or her own.
And I slide into abusive terms because I call a spade a spade. When you can do nothing but dodge questions and BS your way out of legitimate arguments I become annoyed and lash out. And it's hypocritical of you to criticize me when you've insulted me on more than one occasion yourself.
No - the parent is not driving the car - the parent told their child not to cross the road
No stupid, I was pointing out the flaw in your analogy once again. God created hell. The parent is driving the car. Both are responsible for the action after the threat. God isn't saying don't do this and that or you might goto hell. He's saying if you don't do this and that I WILL SEND YOU TO HELL. A hell that he created (being the omnipotent creator) for that very purpose of punishing those who do not obey him.
I guess it would be helpful if you read them properly - it would save me the effort of having to post them twice
Again you insult me. At least mine are direct. Your metaphors suck. I read them properly, they still suck. I copy them in bold in rainbow font colors and they will still suck. Post them again and they will still suck.
Well if you don't believe in physics why on earth would you apply yourself to the rigorous discipline o studying it
It's called high school. It's more or less required.
well a fundie xtian doesn't study anything much
See above.
No - the evidence only speaks to those who are qualified to "detect" the evidence
Don't bs. Evidence implies god is proven. Do you have proof? No. Or you would have presented it by now. There's no problem in "detecting" the evidence, the evidence simply fails to exist.
Exactly - thats why you cannot venture in to the subject of god - thats why training is a prerequisite
God cannot be proven so you can't dispute his existence? Could you not use the same argument for Big Foot? Do I need to be trained as a paranormal investigator to determine whether Big Foot exists or not?
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
You continue to give the same illogical argument over and over. Pray tell, what training do I require to proof the existence of god?
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)
Translation: I can't prove it so I'll just BS my way out of it.
Mathew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you."
Lying prick....
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?
What is the training you have to say that god is fact? What training would I require to say god is fictional? Again you babble with no real argument.
Gee, good thing no one has any training or your religion might look stupid.
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?
I have some training for you...
Step 1. Find a moving train
Step 2. Position yourself infront of it
Step 3. Pray god stops the train.
