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

[dybmh]

Trailblazer uses nonstandard rules to connect evidence to conclusions, not those of academic pursuits such as law and science. Her rules are her own. All we know about them is that they connect what she calls her evidence to what she says it supports for her.

Not true. @Trailblazer has evidence. The manifestations of God, as defined by th Baha'i faith ARE evidence of God. The standard rules to connect evidence to conclusions requires proper defintions. The atheist chooses a shallow narrow and corrupt defintion of God in order to reinforce their delusions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Real universe with a hypotheitcal god. That's your claim.

Nope, it never was. We were discussing a hypothetical. You misinterpreted that, perhaps on purpose so that you could make a bogus argument. Deal with it as it is.

There are no limitations on omnipotent and omniscient. Aren't those the qualities that produce the faux-contradiction?

You said "He only exists for the excercise". I know. I'm honestly not sure why a logical person would be reacting this way.

This is your claim. See below. Are you abadoning it? Conceding? Lost interest?

That is the point. To refute my claim one has to put limits on those qualities. Which means that the deity being discussed does not have those qualities.

The limitation is on the material world not on God. It really is a simple idea.

But since this hypothetical, or even real God, made the material world he is responsible for everything in it. If he is omnipotent and omniscient then he is responsible for the actions of everyone. Thanks again for your help on refuting @Trailblazer 's claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To make a lasting impression on all future generations. It's called a martyr. Although that impression is almost exclusively emotional.

For those without a heart, they won't recognize its signficance.

That is a distinct possibility, but it is not the claim of Christians. Jesus may not have even had made a sacrifice, since he would have had to willingly go to his death. We do not know if he did so. In fact in Mark it does not look as if he did so. He would still have been a martyr , but the idea that he sacrificed himself needs some evidence, and we simply do not have that either way. At least we do not have any reliable evidence.

 

[Koldo]

Or, just don't kill it in the first place. ;-)

One doesn't need to kill it, just let it die.

Not that I am against the resurrection of old beliefs or peices together different parts from living and dead beliefs in order to create one's own Frankenstein's creation of a spirituality. It's kind of what I do. I consider myself something of a spiritual scavenger; it's a result of my creative nature to blend symbols in order to find deep inspiration in life.

I abhor this kind of practice with my entire being for I consider it to be intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not true. @Trailblazer has evidence. The manifestations of God, as defined by th Baha'i faith ARE evidence of God. The standard rules to connect evidence to conclusions requires proper defintions. The atheist chooses a shallow narrow and corrupt defintion of God in order to reinforce their delusions.

No, that appears to be the claim. To have evidence on must first have a clear claim, and when questioned she does not even have that.

 

[dybmh]

We can see that.

When you use a totally unrelated field of science that you do not understand at all that is handwaving.

I said "it's basically like schroedinger's cat on steriods" which was just a simple introduction to set the tone and context. Is it hand-waving to set the tone and context?

How do you know that I don't understand schroedinger's cat? I don't think I need to be an expert in the entire field to use it in the way I did.

And, space and time are not unrelated to understanding the reasons that God can be tri-omni.

Most important: Was there something in content of what I wrote that you object to? Here is what I said to make it easy to quote/comment/criticise/whatever.

---

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

Only to the heartless.

 

[dybmh]

No, that appears to be the claim. To have evidence on must first have a clear claim, and when questioned she does not even have that.

Doubt it. @Trailblazer is supremely logical.

I think you're confusing "questioning" with targetting, cornering, and manipulating.

The ex-Christian-predatory-atheist does not "question".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said "it's basically like schroedinger's cat on steriods" which was just a simple introduction to set the tone and context. Is it hand-waving to set the tone and context?

It can be and in this case, it definitely was.

How do you know that I don't understand schroedinger's cat? I don't think I need to be an expert in the entire field to use it in the way I did.

And, space and time are not unrelated to understanding the reasons that God can be tri-omni.

Most important: Was there something in content of what I wrote that you object to? Here is what I said to make it easy to quote/comment/criticise/whatever.

Sorry, but if you do not understand QE then you have admitted that it was handwaving.

---

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

---

TLDR. I did see the false claim of a "gotcha". Study some basic logic. I know that the religious hate logic because it is the enemy of so many religious arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only to the heartless.

Nope, you are ignoring the qualifier again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Doubt it. @Trailblazer is supremely logical.

I think you're confusing "questioning" with targetting, cornering, and manipulating.

The ex-Christian-predatory-atheist does not "question".

Thank you so much for the laugh. And if you truly believe that then we all know why you have not been able to support your own claims.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Like what? Can you give examples?

Of natural complexity? First, what is complexity? Roughly, we can equate it with the number of parameters necessary to completely describe an object or situation. So, a perfect, solid gold sphere is relatively simple. It's diameter alone is all we need to know to specify its morphology. Its composition is specified by the word gold. Contrast that with a mountain (you can ignore any living cells on it). Orders of magnitude more parameters are needed to define its contours and composition. This is why we call a living cell complex. It's constituents and their organization require a very large number of parameters to specify, but is that more complex than a galaxy?

Life on earth has a defintion which requires certain qualities as a consequence of God's infinity.

Gods appear nowhere in science. No scientific definition of life refers to gods.

Their (false) god is denial. They are faithfully devoted to it and serve it.

Many theists become frustrated with critical thinkers and their criteria for belief, which rejects the unfalsifiable claims of religions. And yes, I am absolutely committed to reason over faith.

Theism feels wrong doesn't it? But denial feels right?

Gods don't meet the critical thinkers criteria for belief, so yes, rejection of insufficiently supported god claims is right.

But since your definition of God is so shallow and corrupt, you do not realize humanism's rules do not apply.

Your worldview is not mine. Your ethical system is not mine. And like other humanists, I apply mine to all of reality and even to hypothetical moral agents. This frustrates believers. "Don't judge my god," they protest. "Your rules don't apply there." Yes, they do.

@Trailblazer has evidence. The manifestations of God, as defined by th Baha'i faith ARE evidence of God.

The evidence she offers doesn't suggest the existence of a god to one skilled in the proper interpretation of evidence.

The standard rules to connect evidence to conclusions requires proper defintions

It's all been done long ago. It's there for you to learn.

it is pretty clear that human free will would make every wrong on Earth humans' fault since humans committed those wrongs.
That is rather obvious if one can reason logically and rationally.

Lets take your logic and reason a step further. Does God have free will?

'Free will makes man responsible, but not God' is a good example of special pleading. The rules for man and god are different, but no justification for that is given better than "He's a god and you're not" with no explanation why that exempts the from ethical analysis.

your parents did that, but they are not responsible for what you do any more than God is responsible.

The law disagrees if the child is a minor.

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.

If there is evidence that a god or any other thing exists, then we detect that evidence and come to a logically sound conclusion about it.

How else do you think we would get evidence for God if God did not provide it?

The same way we get evidence that any other thing that exists provides - through the senses. If gods exist, they are detectable like everything else that exists. To be real - to exist - means to interact with other existing things in space and time. If gods exist, they are detectible somewhere somehow. If they make no detectible impact on reality, they meet the definition of the nonexistent. I assume that you reject that. You'd pretty much have to defend the existence of something that generates no evidence.

I realize that there are aspects of reality that are unknown, but only because the right measurement hasn't been made yet. Dark matter is a good example. It's impact on reality was finally detected studying the physics of galaxy rotation and the large-scale structure of the universe. The only evidence was a gravitational effect, but that was detected and dark energy was postulated as its source. Suppose that dark matter didn't exert a detectable gravitational pull or any other effect on reality. It is causally disconnected from nature. It makes no discernable impact on physical reality. It is no longer meaningful to say it exists, and being unfalsifiable, claims about it are neither right nor wrong, and never decidable..

 

[dybmh]

Nope, it never was. We were discussing a hypothetical. You misinterpreted that, perhaps on purpose so that you could make a bogus argument. Deal with it as it is.

Nah. Definitely not on purpose. I'm perfectly happily to make up a fictional universe, that makes my argument much much easier.

That is the point. To refute my claim one has to put limits on those qualities. Which means that the deity being discussed does not have those qualities.

Wait. You said: "To refute my claim one has to put limits on those qualities." If I put limits on those qualities I have proven your claim.

But since this hypothetical, or even real God, made the material world he is responsible for everything in it. If he is omnipotent and omniscient then he is responsible for the actions of everyone. Thanks again for your help on refuting @Trailblazer 's claim.

Yes. God is responsible. But ALSO moral and absolutely good. And that was your claim. MORAL is the key word.

 

[wellwisher]

Nope, it never was. We were discussing a hypothetical. You misinterpreted that, perhaps on purpose so that you could make a bogus argument. Deal with it as it is.


That is the point. To refute my claim one has to put limits on those qualities. Which means that the deity being discussed does not have those qualities.

But since this hypothetical, or even real God, made the material world he is responsible for everything in it. If he is omnipotent and omniscient then he is responsible for the actions of everyone. Thanks again for your help on refuting @Trailblazer 's claim.

Humans were given will and choice, which means they need to accept responsibility, since they were not designed to be programmable robots, but creators of their own action. They can learn and create and can choose alternate paths which may not all be useful, but which may have extended consequences.

Picture if you had a wife or husband who had no will or choice. You get to play God to a slave robot. But you would also have to accept responsibly for them, since they are your own creation unable move without you. The Bible does not assume this Atheist premise of human robots, but says humans have will and choice and are not robots so they need to accept responsibility.

On the other hand, say you has a husband or wife to whom you give will and choice; want a mate and not a slave robot. This is better, since they can contribute to creation with their own autonomy of choice and will. If they also chose and will to be on the same page as you, in spite of other possible choices, they become more valuable than any robot or slave husband or wife.

If they do not experiment, you may never know if this is just a good robot. With experimentation comes learning and growth, but also unintended consequences they need to learn from. This may involve learning from you; holy books of your own wisdom. Will and choice often involves an interaction with others, to help with the chess game of life, many moves in advance; faith and prayer, so one short term gain, does not lead to your own checkmate.

Children tend to repeat the mistake that their parents made at that age. A good parent understands mistakes are part of learning and they will out grow these phases of life. But they require the children accept responsibility since they have choices to make. They will not grow, if you have to always bail them out. God is masculine by design since this is based on conditional love; consequences for action due to the autonomy of will and choice.

 

[dybmh]

It can be and in this case, it definitely was.

Not true. Nothing I said depends on the word's "schroedinger's cat".

Sorry, but if you do not understand QE then you have admitted that it was handwaving.

Not true. Nothing I said depends on the word's "schroedinger's cat".

TLDR.

LOL. How long is it? It's 260 words. What you're giving is evidence that the atheist forces shallow narrow answers, and ignores the complex answers to reinforce their delusions.

I gave two examples of the same answer. Here is the shorter one. 119 words.

---

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.

Choose Your Own Adventure - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I did see the false claim of a "gotcha". Study some basic logic. I know that the religious hate logic because it is the enemy of so many religious arguments.

They are "gotchas". I don't hate logic. I'm rather good at logic. My hatred is for evil and the complicit. I hate all manner of unnecessary predatory actions.

 

[dybmh]

Thank you so much for the laugh. And if you truly believe that then we all know why you have not been able to support your own claims.

You would need to read my arguments to assert that I am not able to support them. Since you don't you have made your own unsupported claim.

You said: "you have not been able to support your own claims." That is unsupported.

It's a classic example of the ex-chrstian-predator-atheist double-standard. A self-reinforcing delusion of correctness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nah. Definitely not on purpose. I'm perfectly happily to make up a fictional universe, that makes my argument much much easier.

Your argument already failed.

Wait. You said: "To refute my claim one has to put limits on those qualities." If I put limits on those qualities I have proven your claim.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. To try to refute my argument you had to put limitations on what omnipotence and omniscience are. In other words you have to refute your claim to even try to refute me. You did all of the heavy lifting for me.

Yes. God is responsible. But ALSO moral and absolutely good. And that was your claim. MORAL is the key word.

How is God moral? You are clearly not talking about any Abrahamic gods. As you demonstrated, even if you do not realize it, the Abrahamic God is not moral or good.

 

[dybmh]

Gods appear nowhere in science. No scientific definition of life refers to gods.

Your reply is out of context. I was replying to a claim which presumes a god exists and created the material world.

Many theists become frustrated with critical thinkers and their criteria for belief, which rejects the unfalsifiable claims of religions. And yes, I am absolutely committed to reason over faith.

I am not many or most theists.

You have proven time and time and again you have absolute faith in your self. Even when provided reasons to apply critical thinking to your own beliefs, you reject them without justification.

You are perhaps one of the most faithful and religious people I have encountered. But it is applied in a negative harmful way.

Gods don't meet the critical thinkers criteria for belief, so yes, rejection of insufficiently supported god claims is right.

Not true. Their god is "criticsm" It feels good for them to criticise. That is their ideal. It is what they strive for. They're not rejecting gods. They are in denial. Just like any other science denier.

Your worldview is not mine. Your ethical system is not mine. And like other humanists, I apply mine to all of reality and even to hypothetical moral agents.

What ever system you employ, it does not appear to challenge bigotry because it cannot identify it in itself. The combination of arrogance and ignorance prohibit it. Even if it challenged bigotry in others, it has become the one it opposes.

Your worldview is bigotry.

This frustrates believers. "Don't judge my god," they protest. "Your rules don't apply there." Yes, they do.

No. They don't. Unless you have adopted a proper defintion of a god, then your rules do not apply. You are trying to go fishing with a baseball bat and concluding the pond is empty. People have been using nets for a very long time. Why do you insist on doing things the stupid-way?

The evidence she offers doesn't suggest the existence of a god to one skilled in the proper interpretation of evidence.

Not true. The evidence she offers is perfect. Your defintion is flawed.

It's all been done long ago. It's there for you to learn.

This is an admission that you're tethering yourself to failed ideas. It's willful ignorance which is a consequence of the god you unknowingly serve.

Christian's would call this spiritual blindness. They're right! You do seem to be completely blind.

 

[ppp]

From what I’ve been taught through an in-depth study of the Bible, I think You’re exactly right…. Jesus’ sacrifice is a ransom

I can't be right. I didnt make a statement. I asked a question.

 

[ppp]

Trailblazer uses nonstandard rules to connect evidence to conclusions, not those of academic pursuits such as law and science. Her rules are her own. All we know about them is that they connect what she calls her evidence to what she says it supports for her.

I think that "rules" is an overstatement.