• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"And They Were Both Naked"

Skwim

Veteran Member
So, they did not sin, then, if there is a difference between disobeying a direct order from god and sinning. If what they did was not a sin, then what is the point of the story, and why is it characterized as the original sin?
Questions about sin would have to be answered by the Jews, or maybe the Catholics. As it concerns the god of Abraham, the notion of sin was first propounded by the Jews.

.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
On the exact contrary, I offer no argument at all on whether I exist or not.

So it's time to live up to your bold words and give us a satisfactory demonstration of a real god.
I make three basic assumptions. Each is an assumption because I can't demonstrate its correctness without first assuming it's true. The first assumption is that a world exists external to the self. The second is that the senses are capable of informing the self about that world. The third is that reason is a valid tool. It will already have occurred to you that the first rules out solipsism.

Now: that demonstration please.

If you don't exist, the argument for God is moot. You must prove you exist to avoid wasting my (nonexistent?) time.

Your assumptions begin with these axioms:

1. I must assume a thing is true.

2. Truth exists.

3. Absolutes, therefore, including truth, exist.

4. Therefore, God exists.

Thanks! :)
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Your assumptions
Nope, your own assumptions. (This vice of yours is called 'projection'.)
these axioms:
1. I must assume a thing is true.
You seem to use that one a lot.
2. Truth exists.
Yes it does, but as you know, it changes from time to time.
3. Absolutes, therefore, including truth, exist.
The only absolute statement is the statement that there are no absolutes except this statement.
4. Therefore, God exists.
Since we're trying to be truthful, we can truthfully say that to date the only place gods are known to exist is in the imagination of individuals.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Nope, your own assumptions. (This vice of yours is called 'projection'.)

You seem to use that one a lot.
Yes it does, but as you know, it changes from time to time.

The only absolute statement is the statement that there are no absolutes except this statement.
Since we're trying to be truthful, we can truthfully say that to date the only place gods are known to exist is in the imagination of individuals.

Gosh--it seems that you also believe that you exist in your individual imagination--that is--your best evidence that you exist is that you find your existence self-evident.

I find the existence of God self-evident (most persons do). Please explain your anomaly as well as your double standard (I must accept you exist because you find it self-evident that you exist, but God cannot be self-evident to me).
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I find the existence of God self-evident (most persons do).
Which god? What's self-evident about that one that isn't self-evident with the others?

And obviously the god of the Trinity isn't self-evident, for many reasons, but not least because the whole Trinity concept is incoherent. (This is indeed self-evident ─ anyone can demonstrate the incoherence ─ nor is it a secret, since it's acknowledged by the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, and by the Catholic Encyclopedia, though they use the euphemism 'mystery'.)

If 'self-evident' were the key, I'd go for Aphrodite and Dionusos ─ eros and oinos.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Which god? What's self-evident about that one that isn't self-evident with the others?

And obviously the god of the Trinity isn't self-evident, for many reasons, but not least because the whole Trinity concept is incoherent. (This is indeed self-evident ─ anyone can demonstrate the incoherence ─ nor is it a secret, since it's acknowledged by the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, and by the Catholic Encyclopedia, though they use the euphemism 'mystery'.)

If 'self-evident' were the key, I'd go for Aphrodite and Dionusos ─ eros and oinos.

Good questions. I question your existence, which is self-evident to you, but not to me. So how do you make that distinction?

The trinity is rather coherent to anyone like me who is both a parent and child. But I wasn't aware you are claiming to exist because you are coherent.

If Aphrodite is self-evident to you, please let us all know about your sudden religiosity.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If Aphrodite is self-evident to you, please let us all know about your sudden religiosity.
Unlike heaven, sex and wine are for the living, a highly admirable quality. And if there be deities of sex and wine, then you don't have to believe in them, they come to you anyway.
 
Top