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

[Subduction Zone]

That one is resolvable as well.

I doubt it. How would you do that? No handwaving allowed.

 

[ppp]

1) I am not speaking for others. They have spoken for themselves. Others say they have discovered evidence

What you are doing is relaying hearsay. You have no way to demonstrate to me what is in the mind of anyone who is not you. And you have no way of knowing whether the person to whom you spoke saw evidence, Comprehends good standards of evidence, or is just going along with the party line.

2) Whatever causes people to believe is evidence.

It is not.
What you saying is the moral equivalent of "Bob is Black, therefore Bob committed the murder."

That is a demonstrably crappy standard of evidence.

We are not talking about evidence that a murder has been committed, we are talking about evidence for God's existence

We are talking about evidence. The topic is irrelevant.
Evidence cannot be used to support an event without a series of logically sound arguments connecting the Evidence and Alleged Event.

Deflection.

.Tautology. [Dunsel]

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. Well, the statement presumes something which is omnipotent. If a person says: Pat cannot be omnipotent unless it is able to do backflips on a paperplate. Then, it presumes something called Pat.

My claim is, Pat is omnipotent because Pat is enormous. And that will never change. And Pat can certainly do the backflips, because Pat is omnipotent. However, the paper plate is a problem. If Pat chose to do those backflips, the paper plate is destroyed.

The limitation is on the paperplate. The destruction is a consequence of the defintion of Pat and the paperplate.

Here's what I said:

"Life on earth has a defintion which requires certain qualities as a consequence of God's infinity. Removing or changing those things prohibits life on earth. But God is all-powerful and can destroy it all. But God is always infinite. That doesn't change."

Can you see the connection with the paper plate analogy?

The limitation is not on God, or on God's omnipotence. I can explain it if you wish. I don't think it will be too long. And I don't think the word "create" or creation will become a problem.

that is the problem One cannot simply assume an omnipotent being. There seriously does not appear to be one. We do have unanswered questions but none of the answers point towards a God so far.

Leave Pat out of it, That is just some serious hand waving and special pleading fallacies.

And what you said is simply not true. There is no "definition" on Earth that life requires a God. Where did you get that idea from?

Cut back on the hand waving and perhaps try to cover one point at a time. I see far too many failures and unjustified assumptions coming from you.

 

[Trailblazer]

We were discussing it but you ran away. That only makes it look as if you are afraid that you are wrong and do not want to know why.

We were not discussing it. Asserting that free will cannot exist if God is omnipotent and omniscient is not a discussion.
A discussion is when you explain why free will cannot exist if God is omnipotent and omniscient.
I am not afraid of anything. I am prepared to respond to your explanation.

 

[ppp]

No, your parents did that, but they are not responsible for what you do any more than God is responsible.

Oh. Now you are just being obtuse and grumpy. Later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those claims are true and God is omnipotent and omniscient.

Then why did you run away from the discussion? That looks like you tacitly admitting that you were wrong.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why did you run away from the discussion? That looks like you tacitly admitting that you were wrong.

I did not run away from any discussion becaue there was no discussion. There were only assertions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We were not discussing it. Asserting that free will cannot exist if God is omnipotent and omniscient is not a discussion.
A discussion is when you explain why free will cannot exist if God is omnipotent and omniscient.
I am not afraid of anything. I am prepared to respond to your explanation.

Wrong again, An assertion is part of a discussion. One person claims something and then supports it.

You ran away from that discussion. We were about half way through and you could see that you were wrong. At least that is what it looks like. If I only made an assertion it would not be a discussion, but you know that is not the case.

And if you are ready then quit delaying by making patently false claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not run away from any discussion becaue there was no discussion. There were only assertions.

That is wrong, either your memory is very bad or you are lying. Please stop. If you do not understand something asking questions is fine. But you need to at least try to be honest.

 

[Trailblazer]

What you are doing is relaying hearsay. You have no way to demonstrate to me what is in the mind of anyone who is not you. And you have no way of knowing whether the person to whom you spoke saw evidence, Comprehends good standards of evidence, or is just going along with the party line.

I know what people tell me is in their minds. If they say x was evidence for them then I believe them.

It is not.
What you saying is the moral equivalent of "Bob is Black, therefore Bob committed the murder."

That is a demonstrably crappy standard of evidence.

It is not the standard for evidence, it is the definition of evidence.
You do not set the standards for evidence.

We are talking about evidence. The topic is irrelevant.
Evidence cannot be used to support an event without a series of logically sound arguments connecting the Evidence and Alleged Event.

Nope, evidence for God is not the same as evidence for law. There is no event and there are no logically sound arguments that will prove that God exists. We can only prove that to ourselves by looking at the evidence that God has provided. How else do you think we would get evidence for God if God did not provide it?

 

[Trailblazer]

Wrong again, An assertion is part of a discussion. One person claims something and then supports it.

You ran away from that discussion. We were about half way through and you could see that you were wrong. At least that is what it looks like. If I only made an assertion it would not be a discussion, but you know that is not the case.

And if you are ready then quit delaying by making patently false claims.

There was no discussion, only an assertion. You made an assertion without backing it up. That is called a bald assertion.
But you are free to try to prove I am wrong if you can cite the post nos. where the discussion occurred.
Evidence is everything.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is wrong, either your memory is very bad or you are lying. Please stop.

This is your chance to prove me wrong by posting the links to the posts where the discussion occurred.
If you cannot do that that shows that you remembered wrong or you are caught with your pants down and you are unable to admit you are wrong.
I am waiting.

 

[dybmh]

I doubt it. How would you do that? No handwaving allowed.

I can't promise I won't do something that looks like hand waving. I don't think I'll do it, but you're welcome to call me on it.

It's not that complicated. It's schroedingers cat on steroids. Each and every choice produces both results. Today I made pasta for dinner. I didn't make stirfry. But from God's perspective both choices exist as equal. From God's persepective there's two versions of me. But from my perspective there's just one. When I make the choice, that "world" that contains the choice I made, becomes mine.

Both worlds exist I'm just choosing which one I want to be in. Alternate me, had stirfry tonight. And another alternate me... shock and horror had bacon.. piles and piles of bacon. I'm choosing the existence for myself where I'm keeping kosher.

And God knows all the different consequences for all of those choices. And from God's eternal perspective it's all happening concurrently. Time doesnt even flow for it the same it does for us. Everything is very bizzare for it. From its infinte perspective.

An even simpler model... choose your own adventure books. Did you ever read them? God is the author of the choose your own adventure book. All the different choices are mapped out, God knows what will happen at every choice and in every different possible combination. God wrote the book. Then we, the reader, choose which one of the story lines will be "real". But all the characters in the story are duplicated all over the place. Doesn't matter to the reader. No problem-o. The author knows all the possibilities, and the reader, from the author's perspective has gone through all those different scenarios. The author knows all the consequences. But, the reader's perspective is different than the authors.

Almost all of these atheist "gotchas" are resolved this way.

Choose Your Own Adventure - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[dybmh]

that is the problem One cannot simply assume an omnipotent being. There seriously does not appear to be one. We do have unanswered questions but none of the answers point towards a God so far.

Leave Pat out of it, That is just some serious hand waving and special pleading fallacies.

And what you said is simply not true. There is no "definition" on Earth that life requires a God. Where did you get that idea from?

Cut back on the hand waving and perhaps try to cover one point at a time. I see far too many failures and unjustified assumptions coming from you.

This is your claim. See below. Are you abandoning it? Conceding? No longer interested?

Yes, one cannot have a moral God that is omnipotent and omniscient.

Your claim presumes a God exists. Its right there ^^. And it assumes that there exists a concept of omnipotence and a concept of omniscience. All of those words have meanings.

My claim is essentially, IF God is X then your claim fails. Your claim asserts there cannot be a moral God of any kind if ... I say there can.

But it does require a specific God concept. Atheists generally cherry pick the god concept which forces a specific conclusion and then declare victory. Or they cherry pick the verses and translation they want to defeat, stacking the deck in their favor. All of these are just illusions, card tricks that atheists play.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was no discussion, only an assertion. You made an assertion without backing it up. That is called a bald assertion.
But you are free to try to prove I am wrong if you can cite the post nos. where the discussion occurred.
Evidence is everything.

Go back to yesterday's posts. A discussion had started. If you want to continue I will gladly do so. Otherwise i will simply conclude that you know that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't promise I won't do something that looks like hand waving. I don't think I'll do it, but you're welcome to call me on it.

It's not that complicated. It's schroedingers cat on steroids. Each and every choice produces both results. Today I made pasta for dinner. I didn't make stirfry. But from God's perspective both choices exist as equal. From God's persepective there's two versions of me. But from my perspective there's just one. When I make the choice, that "world" that contains the choice I made, becomes mine.

Sorry but you are already handwaving. You do not get to abuse quantum mechanics. You are trying to limit God's omniscience. In other words you have already conceded the argument since you have admitted that he is not omniscient. If God was omniscient there would be only one version.

Both worlds exist I'm just choosing which one I want to be in. Alternate me, had stirfry tonight. And another alternate me... shock and horror had bacon.. piles and piles of bacon. I'm choosing the existence for myself where I'm keeping kosher.

And God knows all the different consequences for all of those choices. And from God's eternal perspective it's all happening concurrently. Time doesnt even flow for it the same it does for us. Everything is very bizzare for it. From its infinte perspective.

An even simpler model... choose your own adventure books. Did you ever read them? God is the author of the choose your own adventure book. All the different choices are mapped out, God knows what will happen at every choice and in every different possible combination. God wrote the book. Then we, the reader, choose which one of the story lines will be "real". But all the characters in the story are duplicated all over the place. Doesn't matter to the reader. No problem-o. The author knows all the possibilities, and the reader, from the author's perspective has gone through all those different scenarios. The author knows all the consequences. But, the reader's perspective is different than the authors.

Almost all of these atheist "gotchas" are resolved this way.

Choose Your Own Adventure - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Perhaps your problem is that you are looking at it from a human perspective, since it would appear that way. But if God was omniscient he would have known from before the creation. It sort of makes the whole exercise pointless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is your claim. See below. Are you abandoning it? Conceding? No longer interested?

I am not interest in your strawman version. Pat is not omnipotent. He is very strong, but that is nowhere near omnipotent.

Your claim presumes a God exists. Its right there ^^. And it assumes that there exists a concept of omnipotence and a concept of omniscience. All of those words have meanings.

Oh, so we are now in a fictitious universe with a God. My claim only dealt with the limitations of an omnipotent and omniscient God. He only exists for the exercise.

My claim is essentially, IF God is X then your claim fails. Your claim asserts there cannot be a moral God of any kind if ... I say there can.

But it does require a specific God concept. Atheists generally cherry pick the god concept which forces a specific conclusion and then declare victory. Or they cherry pick the verses and translation they want to defeat, stacking the deck in their favor. All of these are just illusions, card tricks that atheists play.

Wow! Massive handwave. If you can find a refutation to my argument then it is refuted. Nice circular reasoning. You must first find a refutation.

And no, my concept does not require a specific God. It is a rather neutral one. Books of myths do not need to be referred to.

 

[Trailblazer]

The point was that there was no sacrifice if he came back to life.

That's a good one. Christians messed up the sacrifice by adding the resurrection.
Baha'is believe in the cross sacrifice but we don't believe in the resurrection so the sacrifice was indeed a sacrifice.

 

[Trailblazer]

Go back to yesterday's posts. A discussion had started. If you want to continue I will gladly do so. Otherwise i will simply conclude that you know that you are wrong.

I went back and reviewed the posts and I can see that a discussion had started when it was interrupted.
I will be glad to continue the discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a good one. Christians messed up the sacrifice by adding the resurrection.
Baha'is believe in the cross sacrifice but we don't believe in the resurrection so the sacrifice was indeed a sacrifice.

That actually would have been a sacrifice. But still a mostly meaningless one.