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?
Yup, we agree. But I never disputed that. I have been very clear from the beginning. You can go back to my previous posts to confirm this
. But yes, we agree now.
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.
It seems to me as if you are the one that is confused. Someones "perception" of reality is exactly that, their perception. Even in the microsoft works definition of perception, it is
"perception: the process of using senses to aquire information about the surrounding enviorment or situation" Now in the analogy that I gave, this is EXACTLY what happened to the man who thought the woman was a prostitute. We are talking about perception of reality, and preconceived notion, right? But think about it, your perception of reality COMES from your preconceived notion every single time. You cant have one without the other. Now, in the analogy, the guy had a preconceived notion of what a prostitue looks like, and what she would be doing. He had that notion before he even left the house. He saw a woman that fit his preconcieved notion, so his perception of reality, how he perceived reality was wrong. It doesnt matter whether or not the woman was actually a prostitute, it was his interpretation of reality, what he perceived her to be. Whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant when discussing his perceptions, because we perceive falsehoods all the time. Now my point is, in regards to this delusion, God could have used a method very similiar to the sting operation, and it therefore could be done in an honest way. God neither changed their perception of reality, nor did he give them a preconceived notion. Even in the context of the scripture, these were things that these men already had.
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.
A persons perception of reality could either be true or false. So, lets use another analogy. Lets say, I have been a life long big foot fanatic. I go on "big foot seeking" adventures and all of that stuff. My friends, who dont believe in big foot, decides to plant some big foot prints in the mud out in the forest. So they decide to take me on a hike. We go out on the hike and we come across these huge footprints. I immediately say "Look, BIG FOOT PRINTS, I KNEW HE EXISTED", and I am very ecstatic. And my friends say "How do you know those are big foot prints, someone could have easily planeted them there", and I say "No, those are big foot prints, look at the size of those things". And i take pictures of it and all of that good stuff. Now what is going on here?? There is no definition of delusion that states a person has to lie to a person in order for the act of "deluding" to come to past. Now yes, someone can be deluded by being lied to, but this isn't exclusive to just being lied to. A delusion is defined, according to wikipedia as a "false belief" in a nutshell. God could have created circumstances at which those people believed a falsehood. But that was because of their preconceived notions, because different people who were in the same circumstance as those people, but without the preconceived notions, could have perceived things differently.
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.
But since I believe that God is the author of all life, a zygote does not come from non-intelligent, but rather, it comes from intelligent. It is on your view that intelligence comes from non-intelligence, not mines. So on your view, if you rewind time and go all the way back to the first assembled cell, you will find out that it is highly unlikely that life could have arose from nonlife, let alone intelligence from nonintelligence. But that is another debate.
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.
THERE WAS NO SPACE BEFORE THE SINGULARITY. If there was no space, where would you put all of the matter and energy?? If matter existed, it would have to occupy space, but since there was no space, there was NO MATTER. This is why the Standard Model of the Big Bang represented the beginning of space, time, and matter.
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.
First of all, you said above that matter and energy existed within the singularity. But there was no SPACE before the singularity. So you cant logically say that on one hand, energy existed within the singularity, which would entail space, and then say that "space-time" did not exist prior to the expansion. You cant have it both ways. Second, if space-time didnt exist at some point, but "began" to exist, there had to be a preexisting cause as to why it began to exist. This is inescapable.
There was matter and space contained within the singularity, the singularity consisted of the entire universe it was all compressed into the singularity.
Once again, there was no space in the singularity. The singularity is a point at which all space is shrunk to zero. There was no space. Matter can only be occupied in space. If there is no space, there is no matter.
I don't refuse to believe in God though, I just don't believe in him, no refusal took place.
Ok, you win this one lol.
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.
Once again, free will. Free will is the capability to do right, or wrong. If it is possible for you to do wrong, you have a sinful nature. God could not have given us free will without giving us sinful nature. As a result of making these wrong descisions, we made ourselves subject to death, which is the punishment for doing wrong.
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?
I also said that a beings free will has to be consistent with their nature. There are some things I cant do with my free will. I cant freely fly to the moon with my arms. There are limits. Gods free will does not allow him to contradict his own holy nature.
I am not, here I am talking about Biblical flaws, logical flaws which has nothing to do with moral standards.
There are no logical flaws in regards to morality. An action is only right and wrong according to the person whose own moral standards allows for the action to be right or wrong. This is what we have been discussing, what is right and what is wrong. If you think it is illogical or some type of injustice is taking place, this is because you are basing it based on your own moral standard.
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.
Ok, so based on this subjective interpretation, if someone kills your whole family because of their religious interpretation, they are right according to their interpretation, and not objectively wrong by any means.