|
|
|
Night Spawn
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
 Posted - 04/26/2002 : 14:19:33 [Permalink]
|
Boron,
Sorry for making that mistake. Let me re-quote and re-type it:
quote:
Unless you think that a soul pops into existence the moment a person dies and is not there when they are alive it makes no sense. You don't go into infinite time when you die, you are already in it while you are alive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If that is true, then why do is there time?
I was replying to his reply that we are in infinite time right now. I asked, if that is true, then why is there time? From what I've read in philosophers debates, there is no time in infinite or infinite has no time.
quote:
God actually says, "in the day that thou eatest therof thou shalt surely die." This means that Adam will die that day. He instead dies many years later.
God says, "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die".
He doesn't say, "in the exact day you choose to do that you must die"
quote:
this is a bad analogy, since god is supposed to be omnipotent. If god has no constraints, "he" is perfectly capable of creating an outcome in which nobody dies, or even gets hurt. Why does "he" not do this?
You mis-understood the comparison.
If God creates people with the choice to do certain things, then the outcome of dying and hurt is, of course, possible.
What would you have expected him to do? Create robots....
I believe my comparison makes sense. I even explained it.
quote:
Also, God has arranged things for the better good. I know that I will get bombed with questions on the comment, but, please continue reading before typing a reply.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/washdeba-question.html
Here's an example a student asked the atheist philosopher, because the philosopher couldn't understand how it is for the greater good and why(it is copy/paste)
Question: Yeah, I have a question that basically relates to the logic behind the harming one for the greater good. And just take a hypothetical situation where someone comes to you and says, "You either kill your parents and your family in this house here, or I'm going to kill all of them plus everybody that lives on the block." And I think that logically, one person would say, "Well, in this situation, killing these few people, harming the small number for the greater good, is in fact the right choice, and that is not an immoral choice to make."
Moderator: Your question?
Questioner: So my question is, how can you now basically use that and say that every case of this is wrong.
Dr. Washington: I wouldn't do it. [applause]
As you can tell by the applause the crowd understood the point which had been made.
Now, try to use that example with God. God has the choice to either permanently erase all of mankind or He can take the situation He is in and just go for the greater good.
Now, Dr. Washington said "I wouldn't do it"...I believe he is saying that he would just let them all die. But God doesn't want us to all just permanently disappear.
Edited by - Night Spawn on 04/26/2002 14:24:42 |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2002 : 14:34:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
God says, "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die".
He doesn't say, "in the exact day you choose to do that you must die"
I find it quite obvious that both sentences say the same thing. The words are different but the meanings are definately the same. Eat the apple on Tuesday, die by midnight. It can't be much clearer.
You also miss the point about choice. If you need to eat the apple to distinguish right from wrong then until you eat the apple you do not know right from wrong. Without that knowledge there is no choice to be made for all actions are good as they perceive them.
Sure God said that eating the apple was bad. But until you eat the apple you don't know what bad is! What kind of unfair jerk is God?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Night Spawn
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2002 : 14:43:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I find it quite obvious that both sentences say the same thing. The words are different but the meanings are definately the same. Eat the apple on Tuesday, die by midnight. It can't be much clearer.
It depends on how you interpret the word "day". There are some parts in the Bible where a day to God is a thousand years...I believe Adam lived to about that amount of time.
The Bible doesn't say the same exact day. It doesn't say "eat it on tuesday, die by midnight"
quote:
You also miss the point about choice. If you need to eat the apple to distinguish right from wrong then until you eat the apple you do not know right from wrong. Without that knowledge there is no choice to be made for all actions are good as they perceive them.
Sure God said that eating the apple was bad. But until you eat the apple you don't know what bad is! What kind of unfair jerk is God?
If all choices seemed good to them, then they wouldn't have thought about eating them apple at all...they wouldn't have thought about what God told them, because, according to you, all choices to them are good to make.
Also, how can you, a finite person, judge to an infinite what is and isn't fair?
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2002 : 14:55:04 [Permalink]
|
So if I substitute "thousand years" for day we get: "In the thousand years that thou eatest therof thou shalt surely die"
Just where does it say a day to god is a thousand years to us. I am thinking it doesn't unless you twist the meaning errrr interpret it differently.
And that is what you are doing. Playing word games and trying your hardest to make sense of things that don't make sense and are horribly unfair.
The business with the apple is something you have totally closed your mind to. Without the knowledge there can be no crime. So what if god said not to eat the apple? It's all good...right?
quote:
Also, how can you, a finite person, judge to an infinite what is and isn't fair?
Easy. Adam ate the apple. Now we have the knowledge of good and evil...right? I use that knowledge to call god on its unfairness.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Night Spawn
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2002 : 15:07:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So if I substitute "thousand years" for day we get: "In the thousand years that thou eatest therof thou shalt surely die"
God is all-knowing...why would he not know how old Adam would be before Adam died?
quote:
Just where does it say a day to god is a thousand years to us. I am thinking it doesn't unless you twist the meaning errrr interpret it differently.
2Peter 3:8
Here's a link to some sites also, that are sure to have more:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22day to God is a thousand%22 Bible
quote:
And that is what you are doing. Playing word games and trying your hardest to make sense of things that don't make sense and are horribly unfair.
Actually, the topic of discussion is hell and you are sliding off topic...games?
Also point out to where I am playing games?
quote:
The business with the apple is something you have totally closed your mind to. Without the knowledge there can be no crime. So what if god said not to eat the apple? It's all good...right?
I don't understand your point(or what this has to do with hell). They knew to listen to God, but they didn't. They had the knowledge to know to listen to Him.
quote:
Easy. Adam ate the apple. Now we have the knowledge of good and evil...right? I use that knowledge to call god on its unfairness.
How does that answer my original question which you quoted? How is that unfair?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
[/quote]
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2002 : 15:38:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't understand your point(or what this has to do with hell). They knew to listen to God, but they didn't. They had the knowledge to know to listen to Him.
Bzzzzzzzzzz wrong answer. They had to eat the apple to have the knowledge. God said so. Are you calling God a liar??!!
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Night Spawn
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2002 : 15:41:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't understand your point(or what this has to do with hell). They knew to listen to God, but they didn't. They had the knowledge to know to listen to Him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bzzzzzzzzzz wrong answer. They had to eat the apple to have the knowledge. God said so. Are you calling God a liar??!!
Once again...straying off topic.
The knowledge of good and evil? Yes. But they already had enough knowledge, of course, to listen to God.
if they didn't then why did they hesitate and think about it? They would have eaten it without the serpents help.
Can we get back on subject here?
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2002 : 16:07:32 [Permalink]
|
I was replying to his reply that we are in infinite time right now. I asked, if that is true, then why is there time?
Infinite time does not mean no time it means limitless amounts of time. If NOW is not included then you have placed a limit on the time you are speaking of so it is then no longer infinite.
What could a person do that was so bad that they would be made to suffer forever. Surely there would come a time when even a Hitler had been fully punished for his crimes and any more suffering would just be sadism.
You mis-understood the comparison.
If God creates people with the choice to do certain things, then the outcome of dying and hurt is, of course, possible.
How is this any different from the criminal, you've never explained that? The criminal gives you freedom of choice --hand over all your money or I will kill you. There you have a choice. God says do what I tell you see or I'll kill you. Same thing, your fairytale portrays god as a thug offering the same options.
What would you have expected him to do? Create robots....
I believe my comparison makes sense. I even explained it.
You never explained it, try again.
The bible has god making man as a "robot" yes. God never asks "would you like to do this or something else." God only gives orders, never choices. Only He makes the choices.
The snake tells Eve that if they eat the fruit they can be like god--that means they would get to choose things for themselves instead of being gods slaves. That's free will. Snake tells her that she won't die, and she doesn't. Snake is the hero of this story. God is the villain who punishes mankind because they achieved free will.
It depends on how you interpret the word "day". There are some parts in the Bible where a day to God is a thousand years...I believe Adam lived to about that amount of time.
SWEET MOTHER OF PEARL! How christians can fling the BS. It is obvious to you that the story in Genesis isn't true. That's it's utter nonsense. That's why you have to twist it. When they say a day they actually mean a thousand years--how can you speak such foolishness and expect to be taken seriously?
A Jewish day starts at sunset and lasts until the next sunset. 24 hours no more no less.
The bible says that Adam lived 930 years- so if every day is a thousand years long…counting leap years-that would make him something like 418,500,000 years young. Or does the bible mean years when it says years and a thousand years when it says a day?
And if you can't trust it to know how long a day is how can you trust it on anything?
The Bible doesn't say the same exact day.
It's meaning couldn't be any more clear. It said for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die God lied and the snake didn't.
If all choices seemed good to them, then they wouldn't have thought about eating them apple at all...
Perhaps a clearer way of putting that--since you seem to be literal when Skeptics write to you but metaphoric WHEN IT SUITS YOU about the bible--is not that all choices seemed good so much as they seemed equal. God had with held from them the knowledge of what was right and what wasn't. They were incapable of making a choice. They were capable of actions but as they had no understanding of the concepts of right and wrong these actions cannot be considered choices.
they wouldn't have thought about what God told them, because, according to you, all choices to them are good to make.
How could they know that disobeying god was wrong when god kept them from knowing what right & wrong are? How can you have "Free Will" if you don't know the difference between right and wrong? You can't, you are just a "robot" following the orders of your master
Also, how can you, a finite person, judge to an infinite what is and isn't fair?
I can judge because I have an attribute that god and all the heavenly hosts can never hope to have. It makes me more able to judge Yahweh than he is able to judge me!
What is this super power I have that lets me be the judge of Elohim you ask? I'll let you in on my secret.
I'm not mythological and they are. Eat your sacred heart out Jesus.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2002 : 16:18:13 [Permalink]
|
Once again...straying off topic.
This is very much to the topic.
It is about how a loving god could comdem people to hell for eternity. So it starts with the "fall" of man and the institution of death by god.
The knowledge of good and evil? Yes. But they already had enough knowledge, of course, to listen to God. To be robots, yes. What they didn't have, and weren't offered by god, was free will.
if they didn't then why did they hesitate and think about it? Because without the knowledge of good and evil they had nothing to base their actions on.
They would have eaten it without the serpents help. So now you are saying that this was a complete set up by god. That makes god a monster.
Can we get back on subject here? We never left it. Since we are talking about god beginning to send people to hell wher could be a better place to start.
[/quote]
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2002 : 17:25:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
this is a bad analogy, since god is supposed to be omnipotent. If god has no constraints, "he" is perfectly capable of creating an outcome in which nobody dies, or even gets hurt. Why does "he" not do this?
You mis-understood the comparison.
If God creates people with the choice to do certain things, then the outcome of dying and hurt is, of course, possible.
What would you have expected him to do? Create robots....
I believe my comparison makes sense. I even explained it.
Hi Spawn. I'm not a biblical scholar but I am a student of philosophy and logic. I have seen this argument numerous times and it's fallacious every time. This is a form of post hoc reasoning. You are using your knowledge of the way things are to judge God's motives after you already know the outcome. Naturally, you realize your concept of God can't be constrained this way, by definition. In other words, there's no a priori reason why God wouldn't make us all robots other than his arbitrary and capricious will, which you cannot, again by definition, know.
quote:
Also, God has arranged things for the better good. I know that I will get bombed with questions on the comment, but, please continue reading before typing a reply.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/washdeba-question.html
Here's an example a student asked the atheist philosopher, because the philosopher couldn't understand how it is for the greater good and why(it is copy/paste)
Question: Yeah, I have a question that basically relates to the logic behind the harming one for the greater good. And just take a hypothetical situation where someone comes to you and says, "You either kill your parents and your family in this house here, or I'm going to kill all of them plus everybody that lives on the block." And I think that logically, one person would say, "Well, in this situation, killing these few people, harming the small number for the greater good, is in fact the right choice, and that is not an immoral choice to make."
Moderator: Your question?
Questioner: So my question is, how can you now basically use that and say that every case of this is wrong.
Dr. Washington: I wouldn't do it. [applause]
As you can tell by the applause the crowd understood the point which had been made.
Now, try to use that example with God. God has the choice to either permanently erase all of mankind or He can take the situation He is in and just go for the greater good.
Now, Dr. Washington said "I wouldn't do it"...I believe he is saying that he would just let them all die. But God doesn't want us to all just permanently disappear.
This is the same type of poor reasoning: "God didn't want to do x so he had to do y." This is completely at odds with the Christian conception of God. You cannot have God constrained to a dichotomy when there are other logically possible choices. Note: I don't consider 'God can't make a square-circle' type dilemmas meaningful sentences, much less meaningful objections.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Night Spawn
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2002 : 20:23:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Infinite time does not mean no time it means limitless amounts of time. If NOW is not included then you have placed a limit on the time you are speaking of so it is then no longer infinite.
If God created time, then He had to have been outside of time, so how can time be limitless? God created time, so it can't be limitless, because He can end it if He likes....
Also, I never said NOW, as in this very moment, was infinite....it's finite until I die.
So, I still stand by my quote:
quote:
Piercd4Redemptn: When a person dies, they leave finite time, thus the fact it was a finite crime holds no ground becuase they entered into infinity...
Piercd4Redemptn: the crime is paid nonetheless... there's no "time"
Piercd4Redemptn: thus no course of time needed to be determined.
Piercd4Redemptn: or else a lot of finite crimes= the magnitude of an infinite one, if they could even determine what an "infinite" crime is...
quote:
What could a person do that was so bad that they would be made to suffer forever. Surely there would come a time when even a Hitler had been fully punished for his crimes and any more suffering would just be sadism.
I still stand by my finite/infinite post concerning this.
quote:
How is this any different from the criminal, you've never explained that? The criminal gives you freedom of choice --hand over all your money or I will kill you. There you have a choice. God says do what I tell you see or I'll kill you. Same thing, your fairytale portrays god as a thug offering the same options.
My fairytale? If you would like for me to continue replying, please be mature and have respect for my beliefs as I have respect for yours. Thanks
God doesn't say he'll kill you. I sin all the time and I don't die. Killing and not killing are two totally different comparisons.
quote:
You never explained it, try again.
The bible has god making man as a "robot" yes. God never asks "would you like to do this or something else." God only gives orders, never choices. Only He makes the choices.
God doesn't make my choices for me...try again. If God doesn't give choices, then why did they make the choice?
God does give me the choice to "do this choose otherwise", wo how am I a robot? Please tell me how I'm a robot.
Here's my quote, yet again, which I never explained, according to you:
quote:
Also, God has arranged things for the better good. I know that I will get bombed with questions on the comment, but, please continue reading before typing a reply.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/washdeba-question.html
Here's an example a student asked the atheist philosopher, because the philosopher couldn't understand how it is for the greater good and why(it is copy/paste)
Question: Yeah, I have a question that basically relates to the logic behind the harming one for the greater good. And just take a hypothetical situation where someone comes to you and says, "You either kill your parents and your family in this house here, or I'm going to kill all of them plus everybody that lives on the block." And I think that logically, one person would say, "Well, in this situation, killing these few people, harming the small number for the greater good, is in fact the right choice, and that is not an immoral choice to make."
Moderator: Your question?
Questioner: So my question is, how can you now basically use that and say that every case of this is wrong.
Dr. Washington: I wouldn't do it. [applause]
As you can tell by the applause the crowd understood the point which had been made.
Now, try to use that example with God. God has the choice to either permanently erase all of mankind or He can take the situation He is in and just go for the greater good.
Now, Dr. Washington said "I wouldn't do it"...I believe he is saying that he would just let them all die. But God doesn't want us to all just permanently disappear.
quote:
The snake tells Eve that if they eat the fruit they can be like god--that means they would get to choose things for themselves instead of being gods slaves.
If they couldn't choose things for themselves, then why did they choose?
quote:
That's free will. Snake tells her that she won't die, and she doesn't. Snake is the hero of this story. God is the villain who punishes mankind because they achieved free will.
I'm not being punished....how is he the villain? I'm happy, because of God, so how is he a bad villain?
quote:
SWEET MOTHER OF PEARL! How christians can fling the BS. It is obvious to you that the story in Genesis isn't true. That's it's utter nonsense. That's why you have to twist it.
I wouldn't say, "it's obvious", but I would say that it's hard to believe...but I still hang in there. If it seems as if I'm twisting it around, I'm sorry, but I'm stating what I believe.
quote:
When they say a day they actually mean a thousand years--how can you speak such foolishness and expect to be taken seriously?
A Jewish day starts at sunset and lasts until the next sunset. 24 hours no more no less.
The bible says that Adam lived 930 years- so if every day is a thousand years long…counting leap years-that would make him something like 418,500,000 years young. Or does the bible mean years when it says years and a thousand years when it says a day?
I didn't say every single day in the bible or anything like that. I'm talking about when God speaks of "day"...the scriptures I gave are just a reminder that God is outside of time, so in Genesis w |
|
|
|
Night Spawn
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2002 : 20:40:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have seen this argument numerous times and it's fallacious every time. This is a form of post hoc reasoning. You are using your knowledge of the way things are to judge God's motives after you already know the outcome. Naturally, you realize your concept of God can't be constrained this way, by definition. In other words, there's no a priori reason why God wouldn't make us all robots other than his arbitrary and capricious will, which you cannot, again by definition, know.
I have a personal relationship with God. You guys will laugh at me, but I don't care...I 'talk' with God...He speaks to me through my dreams.
So, the question is this:
Who are you to know what I don't know, when I say I do know, because God tells me?
quote:
This is the same type of poor reasoning: "God didn't want to do x so he had to do y." This is completely at odds with the Christian conception of God. You cannot have God constrained to a dichotomy when there are other logically possible choices. Note: I don't consider 'God can't make a square-circle' type dilemmas meaningful sentences, much less meaningful objections.
You fail to show me how it's poor reasoning? The point has been made in that quote, that's why you won't respond to it, rather than tossing it aside as 'blah'.
1. I have a personal relationship with God and 'talk' with that God through mind and he speaks to me through my dreams(i'm sure your laughing your ass off lol).
2. With that known, God answers the questions I have.
3. Therefore, it's safe for me to say what God would do, because I know God.
Feel free to show me how and why God would actually choose the other choices with what I typed above known....
quote:
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
Feel free to actually go to the links which I gave, rather than making replies on part of my post, and show me how Dr. Craig is ridiculous...the people watching, moderators, and atheists whom debating against him didn't seem to think so. I don't believe they've ever called him ridiculous....thanks though.
God Bless,
Timothy
Edited by - Night Spawn on 04/26/2002 20:42:07
Edited by - Night Spawn on 04/26/2002 20:42:54
Edited by - Night Spawn on 04/26/2002 20:44:29 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2002 : 21:50:17 [Permalink]
|
My fairytale? If you would like for me to continue replying, please be mature and have respect for my beliefs as I have respect for yours. .....Geez, man, why do you have to be like that. I mean, I came here open-minded, even thanking you guys for your questions and you are still being immature and rude. I haven't said anything about you or your beliefs, so what's your point in sinking down in immaturity?
What type of web site do you think this is? We are Skeptics...it says so at the top of this page if you missed it.
Most of the people you are talking to here are either Agnostics or Atheists. Myself, I have the honor of being an Atheist. If anyone is immature it is you ending each reply to Agnostics/Atheists by saying "God bless." That is the height of rudeness and yet we all let it pass. You have balls to claim that your god is real and talks to you in your sleep and think that expressing your opinion is just fine. And then you chastise me for expressing my opinion on the same subject. You want me to pretend that there is a god so as not to offend you. Forget it Tim.
I find your baseless claims of a god offensive and childish. They are on a level with belief in the tooth fairy. Don't you dare call yourself open minded in the same breath you tell people that you refuse to hear their opinions. Keep your bigotry to yourself.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2002 : 22:14:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have a personal relationship with God. You guys will laugh at me, but I don't care...I 'talk' with God...He speaks to me through my dreams.
So, the question is this:
Who are you to know what I don't know, when I say I do know, because God tells me?
Okay, I can see you have had enough logic for today. Why didn't you just say this in the first place? Because this dream-talking with God seems like a convenient way to get some real answers. Has he ever told you anything useful, other than that he has an apparently arbitrary and capricious will?
quote:
quote:
This is the same type of poor reasoning: "God didn't want to do x so he had to do y." This is completely at odds with the Christian conception of God. You cannot have God constrained to a dichotomy when there are other logically possible choices. Note: I don't consider 'God can't make a square-circle' type dilemmas meaningful sentences, much less meaningful objections.
You fail to show me how it's poor reasoning? The point has been made in that quote, that's why you won't respond to it, rather than tossing it aside as 'blah'.
I had considered you might be able to pick out the implied premises. No matter; this syllogism sums up your position:
Let God be an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being.
P1) God created all that exists except for God
P2) God can alter his creation in any meaningful way
P3) God is the ultimate judge of universal good and evil
P3) Any of God's creations will have maximum intrinsic goodness or will lead to increased overall goodness
P4) God created universe A with free will
C1) God could not have created universe A without free will
C1 is false because it does not follow from the premises. It is simply a statement of incredulity. There is no reason God could not have created a universe without the freedom to choose evil. If you claim there is a reason, then you eliminate omnipotence. The best you can do is say God told you in your dreams this free will universe has the maximum amount of possible good. And that's poor reasoning, at best.
quote:
1. I have a personal relationship with God and 'talk' with that God through mind and he speaks to me through my dreams(i'm sure your laughing your ass off lol).
Funny how changing one word in this statement will get you your very own padded cell.
quote:
2. With that known, God answers the questions I have.
So he really does answer questions you ask him? Are there limits to what you may ask?
quote:
3. Therefore, it's safe for me to say what God would do, because I know God.
Some years ago, I read a few cognitive psych studies about the 'feeling of knowing.' I'll try to find something to link to, but the findings were remarkably consistent: The degree to which one feels he knows something has a startlingly small correlation with what he actually knows.
quote:
Feel free to show me how and why God would actually choose the other choices with what I typed above known....
I have no idea what you two talk about at night. I'm trying to teach you logic.
quote:
quote:
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
Feel free to actually go to the links which I gave, rather than making replies on part of my post, and show me how Dr. Craig is ridiculous...the people watching, moderators, and atheists whom debating against him didn't seem to think so. I don't believe they've ever called him ridiculous....thanks though.
  Ahem. The above is what's know as a signature. It's usually something that I find humorous, insightful or in some other way memorable, so I tell the bulletin board software to place it at the end of all my posts. This particular one is by the 18th century philosopher, David Hume. It's from his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which I am currently reading.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2002 : 14:15:44 [Permalink]
|
I know you guys just went over this stuff with him, but I just got out of the hospital after a bad asthma attack and I am dying to fire off a good one. So, if you'll excuse me...
quote:
quote:
Same thing, your fairytale portrays god as a thug offering the same options.
My fairytale? If you would like for me to continue replying, please be mature and have respect for my beliefs as I have respect for yours. Thanks
We all do respect your beliefs, but until you can not only provide solid proof of the Bible being real, let alone an interpretation everyone in the world agrees on, then we'll start being a little more gentle.
quote:
1. I have a personal relationship with God and 'talk' with that God through mind and he speaks to me through my dreams(i'm sure your laughing your ass off lol).
2. With that known, God answers the questions I have.
3. Therefore, it's safe for me to say what God would do, because I know God.
You know God all right, because you are just talking with your subconscious! Try this one night: Take a problem that has been really been bugging you or even the night before a big test. Don't pray over it, becuase that will through everything off. You can make up for it in the morning. Anyway, work on your problem or study right up to when you go to sleep. What'll happen is that your subconscious will work on everything for you overnight while you sleep and it'll help you. If you wish to think that God helped you in some way, fine, provided you didn't pray the night before. I've used that technique before, right before a bartender's exam. I just did everything in my head and did the motions with my hands and I did fine. Fat lot of good it did me in getting a job, though...
And PhDreamer's right, if you change one word in you first statement above, you could be put into a cell with padded walls.
________________________
Two more years...Two more years...Two more years...Two more years...Two more years...
*whine*
Edited by - James on 04/27/2002 14:17:31 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
