• 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?

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
dybmh said:
The point is: You said that the choice doesnt matter. But if the consequences are set, then the choice matters.

When a person makes a choice they are transferred into the timeline where the predetermined consequences occur. I don't need to hear YOUR version of how it fails, because anyone can construct a logical contradiction on demand if they choose to.

Please take what I said above, and show the logical contradiction? Again, What I said above. Not what you think I'm saying, not what you hope Im saying. Not what you believe I ma saying. Take my precise and carefully chosen words, and show their fault. If you can. Here it is below. One sentence.

When an individual makes a choice they are transferred into the timeline where the predetermined consequences occur.



You still didn't answer the question. My claim is below. Notice that no limitation on either God's omniscience or free-will has been produced.

When an individual makes a choice they are transferred into the timeline where the predetermined consequences occur.
Click to expand...
Please no handwaving. You are just repeating bogus claims without dealing with the actual problem.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
dybmh said:
I broke it down. I brought you details. I brought you summaries. But none of that is needed. One sentence will do now that you have admitted that multiple timelines are not being ignored. Ignoring those is what produces the atheist's religious talking-point.

When an individual makes a choice they are transferred into the timeline where the predetermined consequences occur.

No limitation on God's omniscience, no limitation on free-will is produced.
Click to expand...
No, you just repeated failed arguments.
 
dybmh

dybmh

ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Subduction Zone said:
I see, so you were using an equivocation fallacy.

In case you did not realize it we were talking about a "miraculous God".
Click to expand...

Miracles aren't always good nor positive. It is a negative-miracle that 1/3 of Americans still think the election was stolen. It is a negative-miracle that @F1fan argued with me even though we agree, and shifted my words into the opposite of what I said.

You did the same thing yesterday.

I'm still trying to figure out what sort of "magic" is possessing @It Aint Necessarily So , although I think have those gods ID'd, understood and mastered. @blü 2 is a mystery. But also somewhat predictable ( previously episcopal?).
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
dybmh said:
Miracles aren't always good nor positive. It is a negative-miracle that 1/3 of Americans still think the election was stolen. It is a negative-miracle that @F1fan argued with me even though we agree, and shifted my words into the opposite of what I said.

You did the same thing yesterday.

I'm still trying to figure out what sort of "magic" is possessing @It Aint Necessarily So , although I think have those gods ID'd, understood and mastered. @blü 2 is a mystery. But also somewhat predictable ( previously episcopal?).
Click to expand...
So what/ I never daid that they were all good or all bad. This appears to be a pointless strawman on your part.

And what did I supposedly do yesterday? You were probably not reasoning rationally again.
 
dybmh

dybmh

ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Subduction Zone said:
So what/ I never daid that they were all good or all bad. This appears to be a pointless strawman on your part.
Click to expand...

Then the defintion I brought stands. When people say Clapton is god, it's because the way he plays appears effortless and miraculous.

Subduction Zone said:
And what did I supposedly do yesterday? You were probably not reasoning rationally again.
Click to expand...

We agreed that falsification was irrelevant because it was hypothetical. I said that to @It Aint Necessarily So . Then you replied attempting to correct me, when I was saying literally the same thing you were. Literally. The only difference was, I had the tiniest bit more detail.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
dybmh said:
Then the defintion I brought stands. When people say Clapton is god, it's because the way he plays appears effortless and miraculous.
Click to expand...
Nope, that is just a silly equivocation fallacy that demotes your god to aa folk myth. If you are fine with that then so am I.
dybmh said:
We agreed that falsification was irrelevant because it was hypothetical. I said that to @It Aint Necessarily So . Then you replied attempting to correct me, when I was saying literally the same thing you were. Literally. The only difference was, I had the tiniest bit more detail.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a logical argument, but you could not follow it. You were not saying the same thing as I was since you were trying to support what amounts to a "So what?" argument.
 
Trailblazer

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
That was all that was required. He had not point. You do not seem to understand that some arguments are so weak that they can be refuted with a "So what?"
Click to expand...
That is called deflection since you cannot refute what he said. If he had no point you should be able to explain why he had no point, but you cannot do that so instead of debating you deflect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top