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

[We Never Know]

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**

 

[We Never Know]

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]

Lmao! I am not a thiest. Whoops your mistake, as usual.
**mod edit**

You can deny your god as much as you like, but your posts tell us differently. **mod edit**

 

[Subduction Zone]

"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]

You can deny your god as much as you like, but your posts tell us differently. But the bit about you being a narcissist does appear to be quite accurate.

You mean your god? You deny your god daily. 97% of your post support that. Oops!

 

[We Never Know]

More projection. I was not the one that came in and tried not to understand a simple concept. That is your standard behavior.

Pot meet kettle.

And there's your restart lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean your god? You deny your god daily. 97% of your post support that. Oops!

Flail, flail, flail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pot meet kettle.

And there's your restart lol

Go to bed, you are repeating yourself endlessly.

 

[We Never Know]

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

 

[exchemist]

For those of you who don't take the story of the Fall literally. Adam, Eve, Tree, Serpent, etc, how do you envision the Fall of Man happening? And if it didn't happen, what use is Jesus?

Would this be like a True Scotsman?

 

[blü 2]

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]

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?

For experimental physicists, quantum frustration leads to fundamental discovery

A team of physicists recently announced that they have discovered a new phase of matter. Called the 'chiral bose-liquid state,' the discovery opens a new path in the age-old effort to understand the nature of the physical world.

www.sciencedaily.com

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[blü 2]

Not knowing doesn't mean non-existent.
It simply means not known.

Not knowing certainly doesn't mean existent.

Hence my phrasing in #278.