God and stuff?

[Murray]

sailor click the "quote" button right above the text box, the copy and paste the quote you wish to respond to i between the 2 quotes like this [quot3] like this [quot3]

Or if you wish to respond to a persons entire post , scroll over their post and press quote

[sailornaruto39]

@rob:
"How would it not mess with free will if there wasn't an option to do it?"
because you can still choose to eat all the other fruits. It doesn't count as free will infringement to eat from something that doesn't exist. If the idea of the tree was never even bothered with our free will would be fine, we can still make choices. As i said,preventive measures aren't messing with free will.

"if there wasn't and would never be a tree, then there would be no reason to warn against it. If there was no tree,"
doy!!!

"here would be no option to eat of it no matter how badly you wanted to."
you wouldn't anyway, it doesn't exist. Why not he creature little tentacle kids so we can have the option to rape them? He can make plenty worse things in where we take the worse road. I hope since you really care about giving someone the option to disobey you, you go buy a gun whether you need it or not and put it in your child's room so he can have the option to disobey you :/

@your fire example is bad. We know fire exists, we can feel and see it acting and dub that phenomena fire. One can say that the nature all around us is god. Ignoring semantics you could. But that doesn't prove the sentient creator of the universe. Besides many people DON'T need religion of any kind. But with your metaphor i guess we can say non xtians are fireproof XD

[Murray]

use the quote button

it makes life much more easy

[Murray]

Sail the largest evidence for a creator of the universe is in scientific FACT. By ignoring it you ignore simple math along with logic and reason.

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,


10^600

The chance of DNA randomly appearing

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1,000,000,000,000,000,000

10^18

The number of seconds since the universe began 30 billion years ago






Now, anything above the probability of 10^50th is deemed impossible, why ignore mathematical facts?

It's things like these that cause many atheist to become deist.

and at the creation of the universe thing, where did the laws of physics that govern our inverse come from? Want to believe on the multiverse theory. GREAT! What caused the other universes to begin with.

Most scientist agree the universe had a start , and is not and never was eternal, the multi-verse theory itself is a sad excuse to prolong acceptance the scientific facts

[RickD]

sailor posted:

"How would it not mess with free will if there wasn't an option to do it?"
because you can still choose to eat all the other fruits. It doesn't count as free will infringement to eat from something that doesn't exist. If the idea of the tree was never even bothered with our free will would be fine, we can still make choices. As i said,preventive measures aren't messing with free will.

Sailor, we are talking about free will where it pertains to man choosing to obey God. God Commanded Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The punishment for that sin was death. Spiritual death, then physical death.

"if there wasn't and would never be a tree, then there would be no reason to warn against it. If there was no tree,"
doy!!!

Again, Sailor. These are the basics of Christianity. one needs to understand this before one can move on. God wants a relationship with man. God loves us first. He desires for us to choose to love Him. If God forced us to love Him, it wouldn't be love.

[Proinsias]

Sail the largest evidence for a creator of the universe is in scientific FACT. By ignoring it you ignore simple math along with logic and reason.

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,


10^600

The chance of DNA randomly appearing

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1,000,000,000,000,000,000

10^18

The number of seconds since the universe began 30 billion years ago






Now, anything above the probability of 10^50th is deemed impossible, why ignore mathematical facts?

It's things like these that cause many atheist to become deist.

and at the creation of the universe thing, where did the laws of physics that govern our inverse come from? Want to believe on the multiverse theory. GREAT! What caused the other universes to begin with.

Most scientist agree the universe had a start , and is not and never was eternal, the multi-verse theory itself is a sad excuse to prolong acceptance the scientific facts

Big numbers=God

[Murray]

Big numbers=God

If you look at them simply as numbers than I guess that is the message you get from it.


If you look at them as say maybe "the chance of dna randomly appearing" then I think you get the same message, just a bit more reasonably sounding

[sailornaruto39]

@murray:
sorry the way i quote is too much fun now

Iam sorry but iam not following you on all that math. Nothing you said as far as i have seen says anything about god, just says that the chances of the universe happening are low. So what would the chances of god being the cause be?

@Rick:
"Sailor, we are talking about free will where it pertains to man choosing to obey God. God Commanded Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The punishment for that sin was death. Spiritual death, then physical death."

Seems a bit trivial to me,but i feel that if he can do anything then i would think that allowing perfection and free will at the same time would be no biggie.
That still doesn't have anything to do with putting a tree that didn't need to be there. Adam and eve were ignorant, this only further demonstrates a lack of offense to punishment ratio. So iam going to go on a limb and say that since if he directly makes us good that would be lack of free will. Then that must mean it is random(to an extent)

"If God forced us to love Him, it wouldn't be love."
it isn't forced now? You no with hell and stuff (be it brimstone of valley of shadows). It doesn't seem fair to punish people or refuse rewards to them when he didn't prove his case to people personally well enough when there are so many other factors.Personally i have trouble with seeing the love in blatantly giving someone the opportunity to hurt themselves. No one ever answered my question about if they would put harm or danger in their child's way to give them a choice, loaded or not it is what is going on with god.

If i was god i'd make the world perfect. I would work with man to understand goodness in a much more direct way.

EDIT: i think i just learned how to use quote

ANOTHER EDIT!!!!:
Well thanks guys, while i don't agree, and feel he should do a better job, to an extent i can't really get around making everyone perfect and wanting this free will stuff.But then again is it really free will now? It is pretty much the same just that there is more of a neutral management with it.(roll of the dice).

[Murray]

understanding is golden

[jlay]

Essentially what you are saying "dude he is god we can't understand him,the tree must have had some purpose"

Dude, essentially, no. What I am doing is just challenging your reasoning and starting points. So often, we assume our reasoning is sound. But by what standard? A good example is that you say......

As i said before i think i'd rather be designed good rather than flawed and then held accountable for something i can't help.

Good according to what?
Are you saying that when you do evil, you have no say in the matter?
This reasoning also fails to take into consideration, that under your so called 'better' plan, you wouldn't be here to question the existing plan. How would you be you, if you were never to begin with?
The reality of the tree is interwoven into God's complete redemtive plan. That man's purpose on the earth isn't some cosmic ant farm, but that eternity is the end game here. And yes, God knows what is required to have an eternal, real relationship that transcends anything this mind can fathom.

It would appear too me, that you jump to the conclusion that that the tree is a big screw over job by God. You assume that you are correct and starting from the right point.

i have no use for answers like that, because i feel that they argumentative give-ups

Your assumptions are just as arbitrary. How does your inability to understand, or unwillingness to agree, make the tree a reality or not? Answer: it doesn't. Just because you don't like the consequences of the tree, doesn't mean that the tree wasn't a reality.
The reality of a non-created, transcendent, all-powerful being is that He can not be fully understood by a temporal, flawed, and limited being. You may have no use for an answer like that, but it doesn't make that fact any less true. That doesn't mean we can't understand enough. We can. Obviously, the tree that presents such a problem for you presents no issue for so many more people.

Question: If Christianity were true, would you become one?

[sailornaruto39]

@jilay:
"Good according to what?"
my personal preference
"Are you saying that when you do evil, you have no say in the matter? "
nope
"you wouldn't be here to question the existing plan."
yes, and?
"But by what standard? "
Couldn't the same thing be said about you?
And the standard is from what i have come across in my life as reasonable and cognitive thinking.
Such as if you don't want humanity to be doomed, don't put something in their world that would do it, no direct effect on their will they can still make independent decisions.

"Just because you don't like the consequences of the tree, doesn't mean that the tree wasn't a reality. "
doy, i was just accepting it for the sake of argument to understand it's purpose.

"He can not be fully understood by a temporal, flawed, and limited being"
Why is it that when someone questions god then we don't understand him. Yet when it comes to understanding his apparent mercy and love then we do(or at least have a good idea of it). If he is beyond us how can we even trust him? For all we know this whole love a free choice shtick is just to pull our legs.
SO we should trust someone who is doing things we don't understand for some ultimate plan?

"doesn't make that fact any less true."
what fact?

"The reality of the tree is interwoven into God's complete redemtive plan."
if he never put it there would anyone need to be redeemed? And redeemed from what in he first place?
And yes i assume alot, which is why i ask, so if you have anything to challenge them just do it,

"You assume that you are correct and starting from the right point. "
No, when someone doesn't know something alot of the times they assume,but ask QUESTIONS to clear things up. SO again all you have done is tell me that his logic is beyond us and that he knows what he is doing as detailed in

"he reality of the tree is interwoven into God's complete redemtive plan."
"He can not be fully understood by a temporal, flawed, and limited being." (how can you even argue for him?)

[KOGnition]

Question: If Christianity were true, would you become one?

I really like this question.

[1over137]

here is how to use quotes:

(quote="name1") ... thing1 you wanna quote ... (/quote) ... your response 1 ...
(quote="name2") ... thing2 you wanna quote ... (/quote) ... your response 2 ...
(quote="name3") ... thing3 you wanna quote ... (/quote) ... your response 3 ...

Just, instead of round brackets you square brackets.

[sailornaruto39]

Question: If Christianity were true, would you become one?

duh!!!
would you be muslims if islam were true?

[jlay]

And the standard is from what i have come across in my life as reasonable and cognitive thinking.
Such as if you don't want humanity to be doomed, don't put something in their world that would do it, no direct effect on their will they can still make independent decisions.

Why is that any better than unreasonable and chaotic thinking?
Your answer smuggles in objective value. You are presupposing that reasonable is good. (we'll see how reasonable you are being in a moment) You say, 'if you don't want humanity to be doomed.' This presupposes that humanity has inherent value and that being doomed is bad, with no way to jusitfy that position. Afterall, if people are just molecules in motion, then so what? Why is your preference any more valid than someone who wants to eradicate humanity?

would you be muslims if islam were true?

Think about the question. Are your issues with the scripture simply intellectual? There are three basic objections. Intellectual, emotional, and volitional.

For all we know this whole love a free choice shtick is just to pull our legs.

Good example. That is not an intellectual objection, but a volitional objection.

SO again all you have done is tell me that his logic is beyond us and that he knows what he is doing as detailed in

No I haven't. Logic isn't beyond you. Funny that you have no way to account for logic. You value it, apparently. OK, account for it. There are many things in nautre we simply can NOT understand. That doesn't mean they aren't. I am proposing some things to see your reaction, to see if you are actually sincere, or antagonisitc.

(how can you even argue for him?)

Good question. How can the press secretary speak for the office of president? Revelation. Just because I can't meet personally with the President, or see him physically, doesn't mean that the Press Secretary can not. In the same way, your lack of revelation and understanding is not an argumnent that others can't receive such. There are many things about that office that are beyond us. And there are many that we can comprehend. Is it reasonable to accept that for the office of president, but reject it for the creator of the cosmos? Simply put, there are elements of the Christian faith that are only knowable by revelation.

if he never put it there would anyone need to be redeemed? And redeemed from what in he first place?

Redeemed to what, is really the question.

SO we should trust someone who is doing things we don't understand for some ultimate plan?

Now that is a great question. And gets back to my original question, if Christianity were true, would you become one? You obviously didn't really examine what was being asked here. Because, this question is really the issue. Can we, and should we trust God? Is simply having an intellectual belief about the things in the Bible going to make you a Christian?

I really hope you don't think that I am saying, we can't understand anything about God. That simply isn't the case. Can you trust your reason and logic?