• 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!

How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

We Never Know

No Slack
LMAO!! You are not doing yourself any favors by supporting a post with so many errors in it. You do not see the clear errors in his post. First off it looks like an implied strawman. He is another theist that cannot understand the concept of a lack of belief. I doubt if the poster that he responded to denied the existence of all gods. He probably point out that there was no rational reason to believe in them.
Lmao! I am not a thiest. Whoops your mistake, as usual.
**mod edit**
 
Last edited by a moderator:

We Never Know

No Slack
No, you are just projecting again. It only looks as if you are assuming that others are as bad as you are.

Why did you use that foolish argument? No one was claiming that god is not omniscient. Once again we were only discussing the consequences of an omniscient and omnipotent god.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? Once again it appears that you are going out of your way to not understand a rather simple conversation.
"No, you are just projecting again. It only looks as if you are assuming that others are as bad as you are."

You just proved my point. Look in the mirror.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
"No, you are just projecting again. It only looks as if you are assuming that others are as bad as you are."

You just proved my point. Look in the mirror.
More projection. I was not the one that came in and tried not to understand a simple concept. That is your standard behavior.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Go to bed, you are repeating yourself endlessly.
Yes you are. But like a bad habit, you keep coming back.
But let me guess, being you're like a narcissist you don't know any better.
Just like Trump doesn't know when to shut up. He is his own worse enemy lol
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What is a god?.... Exactly! We don't know.
However we do know what a camel is. What an ants nest is. Etc.

But a god...science has no stance on a god. Would we even know a god if we met/seen one?
Indeed. No one knows what a real god is.

Which on reflection is rather odd, given all the thousands of years available to have found out.

It's as though some part of believers know that in fact ...
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Here's a thought.... Everything we have discovered or know of.. Be it gold, diamonds, oil, pluto, mars, the milky way galaxy, DNA, evolution, atoms, quarks, etc etc.... All existed before we discovered them.
So if we haven't yet found a god, does that mean a god doesn't exist?

We just discovered a new phase of matter. Does that mean it didnt exist before we discovered it?

I'd be prepared to say that it was not true that the 'new phase of matter' existed before it was discovered.

But that once it was discovered, it was retrospectively always true.

That's a consequence of there being truths ─ accurate statements about reality ─ but not absolute truths.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
LMAO!! You are not doing yourself any favors by supporting a post with so many errors in it. You do not see the clear errors in his post. First off it looks like an implied strawman. He is another theist that cannot understand the concept of a lack of belief. I doubt if the poster that he responded to denied the existence of all gods. He probably point out that there was no rational reason to believe in them.
@We Never Know said: Here's a thought.... Everything we have discovered or know of.. Be it gold, diamonds, oil, pluto, mars, the milky way galaxy, DNA, evolution, atoms, quarks, etc etc.... All existed before we discovered them.
So if we haven't yet found a god, does that mean a god doesn't exist?


That is what I was supporting. Where are the errors in his post?
I have used the same argument myself.
Pluto existed before it was was discovered in 1930.
Thus it logically follows that God can exist before He is discovered.

Discovering something is not what makes it exist. Something either exists or not.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I'd be prepared to say that it was not true that the 'new phase of matter' existed before it was discovered.

But that once it was discovered, it was retrospectively always true.

That's a consequence of there being truths ─ accurate statements about reality ─ but not absolute truths.
Would "you be prepared to say that it was not true that evolution existed before it was discovered"?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
@We Never Know said: Here's a thought.... Everything we have discovered or know of.. Be it gold, diamonds, oil, pluto, mars, the milky way galaxy, DNA, evolution, atoms, quarks, etc etc.... All existed before we discovered them.
So if we haven't yet found a god, does that mean a god doesn't exist?


That is what I was supporting. Where are the errors in his post?
I have used the same argument myself.
Pluto existed before it was was discovered in 1930.
Thus it logically follows that God can exist before He is discovered.

Discovering something is not what makes it exist. Something either exists or not.
You have to look at the poster you are dealing with. That says it all.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Would "you be prepared to say that it was not true that evolution existed before it was discovered"?
Yes. And after that it had always been true.

And, on the same basis, will always be true unless and until it's shown to be false.

As Brian Cox (I think it was) said, A law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified yet.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Yes. And after that it had always been true.

And, on the same basis, will always be true unless and until it's shown to be false.

As Brian Cox (I think it was) said, A law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified yet.
I disagree. Most always existed. The difference is we didn't know.
Not knowing doesn't mean non-existent
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I disagree. Most always existed. The difference is we didn't know.
Not knowing doesn't mean non-existent
Not knowing means not included in what informed minds think is true. Thinking something is possible is not the same as thinking it's true ─ will we ever discover an FTL drive, for example?

Which is why I've phrased it as I have. Once things are discovered, they're not only true but retrospectively have always been true. Until then they're not true.

There are no absolute truths, only our best understanding from time to time.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Not knowing means not included in what informed minds think is true. Thinking something is possible is not the same as thinking it's true ─ will we ever discover an FTL drive, for example?

Which is why I've phrased it as I have. Once things are discovered, they're not only true but retrospectively have always been true. Until then they're not true.

There are no absolute truths, only our best understanding from time to time.
Not knowing doesn't mean non-existent.
It simply means not known.
 
Top