No, I have always maintained that God cannot "make" someone "freely" choose to do something. That is what I have always said since me and you have been conversing. And you are right, God can force someone to believe something, but it wouldnt be a "free" choice if he chose to do so.
So as i said before, God can force someone to believe something? Are you happy to agree with me on that point, not freely but he can force someone to believe something. You disputed it at first but I think we're on the same page now?
It is actually a good analogy. It goes to show how you can use someones preconceived perception of reality to make them think that what they perceive is true, when in reality the exact opposite is true. You can do this without lying or misleading them. Your preconceived mindset has a lot to do with your perception of reality. How else do you think people get sterotyped all of the time? Because of a preconceived mindset.
So, if someone lies to you by telling you that the next door neighborhood is a sex offender and has been convicted of molesting little boys, and you have a 9 year old son, would you not look at the man differently?? That is altering your perception of reality. What you perceive to be real isn't real, based on what you have been told.
You are still confusing what the perception of reality really is. Someone's perception of reality occurs before their thoughts have anything to do with it, their perception is what they see, hear, touch, taste and smell. Their senses produce their perception of reality. His perception did not consist of the label "prostitute" flashing above her with an arrow pointing down, his perception doesn't even identify what it is looking at or smelling, his perception is only that which he sees. His preconceived mindset and his thoughts are what add the label prostitute or even woman. They are two distinct things. If you want to relieve the confusion we can go back to using the word delusion given that is much more clear in it's meaning. Delusion means sensing things that are not really there, seeing Zeus throw lightning at the Earth for instance would be a delusion. Seeing and hearing an imaginary friend would be a delusion. Seeing actual things and attributing the wrong labels to them is not delusional.
See, thats the point. You said "and can recognize a prostitute", which would suggest that those people have a preconceived mindset about how a prostitute should look. So if a woman looks like a prostitute, regardless of whether or not the woman is actually a prostitute, their perception of reality is being tested. So the officer is playing on the peoples preconceived mindset and their perception of reality.
Yes, the officer is playing on their preconceived mindset and their perception of reality, she is not changing either of those things though, she is not altering someone's perception of reality, she isn't changing anything, she is dressing and acting in a way that makes people think she's something she's not. Hence why when God sent the delusion, he didn't do anything like this, hence why this analogy is not apt. What God did was cause the people to sense something that was not really there in order to keep them believing a lie. He intended to force people, by altering their perception of reality, to maintain belief in something that is untrue. Hence why he lied to them, his intention was to deceive.
This is a fallacy of composition. This is similar to me telling you that the game of chess is considered to be a game of strategic skill and tact. And then you tell me that this isn't true, because the pieces that make up the game aren't strategic, skillful, or tactful. This is CLEARLY an elementary school fallacy. Just because the essence of something is given a property doesnt mean that the parts that make it are of the same property.
The entirety of the zygote is non-intelligent, you said so yourself. That's why this fallacy does not apply. The zygote which is a non-intelligent life form grows into an intelligent life form, it is true of other animals too, even those that are produced from eggs and do not have the nutritious input by the mother. Sorry to say it but your notion of non-intelligence being incapable of producing intelligence is flat out wrong.
First of all, the singularity didn't "contain" the universe. The universe simply did not exist before the Hubble expansion.
I call **********. The expansion of the singularity produced the universe all of the matter and energy was contained within the singularity and as the singularity expanded, everything it contained spread throughout what became the universe.
Second, if the singularity did exist for this "infinite" amount of time, why did it start expanding only 13.7 billion years ago, which is almost like yesterday when you compare infinity to 13.7. Why didnt it expand sooner, or later??
Space-time did not exist prior to it's expansion, without time, it is meaningless to look for a time prior to it's expansion as there really was no such thing. The singularity did not necessarily exist for an "infinite" amount of time. Who know's why it expanded, that's why I said the only real answer is I don't know because it is all speculative as no data exists to support any hypothesis as to why it all happened or what caused it.
Third, there is no scientitic explanation as to how could you get all of this complexity from just a small singularity, at which no matter or space existed. There was no matter or space before it, yet, we have matter and space after it. This is the absurdity of getting "something" from "nothing". Completely absurd.
There was matter and space contained within the singularity, the singularity consisted of the entire universe it was all compressed into the singularity.
I guess so. If you dont see how you refusing to believe in God is a choice, I dont know what to tell ya.
I don't refuse to believe in God though, I just don't believe in him, no refusal took place.
Well, considering the fact that there was no sin before creation, therefore, no death before creation, that would explan why death didnt exist before God created anything. It was only after man decided to use his free will for the wrong reasons did sin and death enter the world.
But you said man had a sinful nature and that is why with free will man can sin while God can't. So therefore, man was created with a sinful nature or else they could never sin. According to Christian tradition man did sin. Either way, you didn't really respond to my question, sin and death did not exist and could not exist until God created something, so when God created something, he created the possibility and subsequently the system of sin and death. It can only be a direct creation from God, who else could create it, humans? They can cause it but I don't see how they are capable of creating the possibility for sin or for death given God is the one that designed them to be susceptible to both sin and death. There really is nobody else to blame.
But you said that humans with free will are capable of sin while God with free will is not, you attributed that to humans having a sinful nature while God's is sinless. This means that humans could not sin while they had a sinless nature, so humans must have always had a sinful nature. Which means God created humans with a sinful nature. Why did he do that?
It has EVERYTHING to do with moral standards. You are using your own moral standards to judge the actions of God. Are you not??
I am not, here I am talking about Biblical flaws, logical flaws which has nothing to do with moral standards.
Subjective, without God, that is.
No their still subjective, they can be right and subjective but by their very nature all personal morals and opinions and thoughts are subjective. That's what subjective means. Even if someone adopts a religious opinion or moral standard they still adopt their subjective interpretation of it.
