Sapiens
Polymathematician
You attack the people and not their ideas. I would think that by now you see how damaged you get when you take that tack ... here's your chance to turn it around and get back to ideas.
-
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!
Faith in Christ is Completely Logical
- Thread starter Serenity7855
- Start date
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Serenity
Have a go at addressing the argument, the responses and the topic rather than attacking the person. Any response or question you get that you find challenging, or can not easily answer to results in your instantly going into personal attacks.
So let's get back on topic ok?
You have asked if people can falsify the Bible's plan fo salvation.
The common response here is to point out that it is not falsifyable.
So given that you are asking people to falsify something that can not be falsifed - where do we go from here?
Have a go at addressing the argument, the responses and the topic rather than attacking the person. Any response or question you get that you find challenging, or can not easily answer to results in your instantly going into personal attacks.
So let's get back on topic ok?
You have asked if people can falsify the Bible's plan fo salvation.
The common response here is to point out that it is not falsifyable.
So given that you are asking people to falsify something that can not be falsifed - where do we go from here?
nazz
Doubting Thomas
which should have been followed by a list of reasons why. We never got that.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Yes, UNLESS anyone can falsify god's plan.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
we'd have to first know what the heck it is
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
You said you were a christian so why don't you know. Plus I linked to a description of it, however, I am sure that might have posed a problem for you to follow and then have to read. I will just have to conclude that your ignorance prevents you from disproving it or you simply cannot do it. Either way, I have succeeded in my demonstration that the Plan of Redemption is impossible to fault. Nobody has come close because, dispite of the claims that it is a fairy story, nobody even knows what it is. Talk about hypocrasy. Thank you .
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Sure it is impossible to fault, such things are not falsifyable - so what is the point? It does not make faith any more or less logical.
Any test must be falsifyable in order to be a test.
Last edited:
NulliuSINverba
Active Member
Logic is a tool that has practically nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian creation myth.
Here is a perfectly valid and logical statement:
All Zbroznoks are Qwifflenubbins.
All Qwifflenubbins are smlarvy.
Therefore, all Zbroznoks are smalrvy.
Can you disprove the logic of such a statement?
Or is it all a case of GIGO?
...
Setting that aside, I do hope that Christians will agree that the following are true:
Premise 1: God is all-knowing.
Premise 2: God is perfect.
Premise 3: God created.
Premise 3.16:The nature of God's creation was such that it required him to manifest on Earth as a human to be tortured to death as a sacrifice to himself so that he could rise again and return to heaven to [url=http://biblehub.com/luke/22-69.htm]sit at his own right hand.
And you're seriously asking anyone to "disprove the logic" of a "plan" like that?
Q. - Perhaps one or more of the premises is garbage?
From the moment that Adam & Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil ...
"... the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves." ~ Genesis 3:7
Q. - If God's creation was perfect, why did it feel compelled to cover itself at the first opportunity?
In any event, it's revealing that the Judeo-Christian creation myth involves shame virtually from the get-go.
...
Setting the fig leaves aside, why would a perfect entity create anything to begin with? Doesn't the act of creation imply a need or a desire? How could that which is perfect desire or need anything?
Also, we're working with the certainty that God knew in advance (see Premise 1) that his creation would be flawed. Or would it be more accurate to say that God's creation was intentionally flawed?
But wait. Premise 2 states that God is perfect. And the Bible itself says that his creation was perfect:
"He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he." ~ Deuteronomy 32:4
If we accept the notion that God's creation is perfect (serpents and free will included), then how do we square that against the fig leaves, shame and eventual blood sacrifice?
If we accept that God knew in advance that his creation would be flawed and that he also knew that he'd be obliged to (temporarily) sacrifice his saintly human self to his bloodthirsty godly self in order to redeem his own creation's intentionally built-in defects ... what sort of sacrifice was that? And what kind of sense does any of it make?
I think the answer has something to do with GIGO.
...
"Christianity. Nobody said it had to make sense®."[/url]
nazz
Doubting Thomas
I know what it means to me. But I don't think it is what you mean. If I find time I will read your link.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I would have to ask how a Zbroznoks could also be a Qwifflenubbins and a smalrvy at the same time as being a Zbroznoks. It sounds pretty illogical to me that they have three identities.
Define GIGO
Premise 1: God is all-knowing. - God only knows that which can be known
Premise 2: God is perfect. Depends how you define "perfect"
Premise 3: God created. - again, it depends how you define "create". Something from nothing or something from element.
Premise 3.16:The nature of God's creation was such that it required him to manifest on Earth as a human to be tortured to death as a sacrifice to himself so that he could rise again and return to heaven to sit at his own right hand. - are you suggesting that God changed from perfection to an imperfect man and then back again. Where do you think he did that. Where is it written that he did that. Tales like that give Christianity the name of a fairy tale and is false doctrine
All of your premises are garbage. You obviously do not have a comprehensive knowledge of Christianity so why are you critiquing that which you are ignorant of?
When the hid themselves and felt shame they were no longer perfect, they had already fallen.
Why do you think that perfection excludes the pleasure of desire. Adam and Eve where created so that mankind could be. This is all fundamental stuff that shouldn't need explanation.
Also, we're working with the certainty that God knew in advance (see Premise 1) that his creation would be flawed. Or would it be more accurate to say that God's creation was intentionally flawed?
Adam and Eve were not perfect when they covered themselfs, plus, the were physically perfect not intellectually perfect. That would put and end to free will. Remember, they chose to eat of the fruit whilst perfect, which was a sin.
You question are based on false doctrine and ignorance. I cannot answer them. May I suggest reading up on the plan of redemption to get a better idea as to what it is all about. As it stands you are making no sense.
Post 138 Posted by me
Genesis 2
16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Meaning that if they left it alone they would live forever
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Genesis 3
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Meaning that if they left it alone they would live forever
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
All the time they were perfect they were unaware of their reproductive organs
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
He was now mortal and would eventually die
All these scripture talkabout the fall from immortality to mortality, from perfection to imperfection. It is a crucial requirement for the plan to work whichis why God made it clear, to those who have eyes to see, that they sinned and had to leave the garden as it was a perfect garden so no unclean thing could dwell there. Genesis also makes reference to that confirming my claim.
Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever
God said "This man has become like one of us", and then qualifies it by saying "to know good and evil"
There is another pretty obvious indicator that Adam was in a state of perfection. A point of continuity that must be maintained other wise the entire plan would be a sham. God is perfect both physically and intellectually. He is omnipotent and omniscient. He cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection. That being the case he could not have dwell upon this earth that is a haven of imperfection and create a human being from the imperfect soil of the ground. The Garden of Eden was in a state of perfection, or, as some call it, Celestualised, in order for God to come here and create a man from the perfect dust of the celestualised earth. There was no other way that He could do it. But there was a problem. A celestualised body does not need to reproduce as it will live for an eternity. So how would we get our time on earth?
Adam had to fall and become mortal to fulfil Gods commandments to go forth and multiply and replenish the earth. God could not tell Adam to sin as that would be bearing false witness which would instantly render him imperfect. So, God gave him two commandments. 1. Go forth and multiply and replenish the earth. 2. Do not eat from the fruit of the tree as you will surely die. Can you see the subtlety in these two commandments. In order to gain knowledge of procreation they needed to eat from the tree. In order for them to multiply they had to fall to mortality giving them the physical ability to reproduce. And to add salt to the wounds, they had no idea that they had to eat from the fruit of the tree in order to sin and fall into mortality, at whichpoint they could obey the commandment to multiply. They had to genuinely sin and didn't know it. Satan thought he was thwarting Gods plan but he was essentual in the role that he played in it all. No tempter, no circuming to temptation, therefore, no sin. No sin, no me and you. A perfect plan, in every way, was set in motion.
Last edited:
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
And that's really the point. I don't care what people CLAIM God's plan is, I care if God actually, demonstrably has a plan that we can evaluate and so far, nobody has presented any evidence that God exists, much less has a plan. It's all just empty claims made without objective evidence and if talking out of one's *** is the best they can do, then there's no basis for even having a discussion. Faith without evidence can never be logical.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Pretty simple to falsify even if you know nothing of it:
1) there is no god, thus
2) there is no plan.
No hypocrasy (sic) involved, just common sense..
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Faith without evidence is everywhere you look. Most things a person 'believes' is simply faith. Even when dealing with the physical world, you have faith the scientists aren't lying to you etc.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
No. that what peer reviews and reproducibility are for ... no faith involved.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
As a lifelong skeptic this statement is absolutely ridiculous. Science does and has to, rely on 'faith'.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
'theory' cannot be attached to anything that is being presented as fact.
That would entail that things like gravitation (fact) cannot have a theory that tries to explain it.
Is that so?
Ciao
- viole
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
No, we can measure gravity. What we can't do is know for sure the gravitational pull that some objects have, is what I would say to that, but I don't study these things, so that's just a laymans view on my part.
Gravity isn't a 'theory', we observe it.