Evidence for God from Science

You had a nice point, I just backed you up



yea i know thats why i was giving you a hug , you explained the part that i was struggling to explain

neo-x wrote:

neo-x wrote:
Why should we listen to god? Just because he can hurt you?


Ah...don't you think you kind of overdid it here or am I misreading you here?. Don't tell me you think we obey God cuz he can hurt us if we don't. That's class 101 BS, at its best; I hope you are aware of it.


Oh what a futile rebellion it is, Neo

Indeed bro!it almost always come down to, "I don't like God that is why I super-punched rationality right in-between the legs and gave atheism another number to add"

Nice way of putting it

daniel wrote:could not look on us anymore and that is why Jesus came to die for us

that is another story, how it is kinda cheap to make that the ONLY way. And nothing was really sacrificed, what is death to god? or even a being like jesus?

neo wrote: but hey you are not gonna throw all of your matches from you kitchen to your backyard trash either. You would keep it in the kitchen but still I can assure you

Yeah,because you are gonna use them sometimes. What was he ever going to use the tree for?

I am afraid, every man who ever told his son, to stay away from marijuana, alcohol, or unwanted sex, bad company or anything he doesn't find good, is also guilty and unjust.

They would be, if they are the ones who made it for no reasons.

If the tree just popped up out of no where and god was like "oh,that looks bad, stay away from it kids" Then i would be perfectly fine.
BUT NO, HE MADE IT, with no real purpose, and they tells them to leave it.

danny wrote:but I really am asking for a rational argument, not an emotional one.

then sorry, like i said humans just think with ration and emotions being emotional creatures.Might as well ask why care about logic.

I'm sure this seems fantastical from your end, but it means nothing to the Christian.

Nor does it answer the question

No, it is a fact: if we are here for a purpose - eternal life in Christ - then we are of infinite more value than if we were not.

That proves nothing, someone can just as easliy see that as a bad things, having to deal with the xtian god. With him hell exists.

You didn’t answer my ‘free will’ post back in the thread, but would you like to take a shot at it now?

Ok go for it again i don't remember.

they are rationally not a factor in reasoning or argumentation.

I have, i have said morals are based on what goals you have and are contextual. You all say a father has to let his kids learn even when he takes preventive measures,but god could have never made the tree and did.

[quote=sailornaruto39]
[quote=neo] but hey you are not gonna throw all of your matches from you kitchen to your backyard trash either. You would keep it in the kitchen but still I can assure you [/quote]
Yeah,because you are gonna use them sometimes. What was he ever going to use the tree for?

I am afraid, every man who ever told his son, to stay away from marijuana, alcohol, or unwanted sex, bad company or anything he doesn't find good, is also guilty and unjust.


They would be, if they are the ones who made it for no reasons.

If the tree just popped up out of no where and god was like "oh,that looks bad, stay away from it kids" Then i would be perfectly fine.
BUT NO, HE MADE IT, with no real purpose, and they tells them to leave it.

Wrong! you don't get it, do you? The tree means, good and evil, these entities already existed when man is made, only he is not aware of them. But by one way or other man would have come across it. Your point become moot when this is the scenario. Hell, in the long run, it doesn't matter who planted the tree or why.

It doesn't matter if you don't have a gun yet, you can get it eventually though. Its out there, it is available. Same is the case here, but I think you don't want to see it from this side.

[quote sailornaruto39]"they are rationally not a factor in reasoning or argumentation.

I have, i have said morals are based on what goals you have and are contextual. You all say a father has to let his kids learn even when he takes preventive measures,but god could have never made the tree and did."

Well he did for sure, you just don't want to see it in an adult fashion.

@sailornaruto39

could you however care to elaborate how God COULD have made the tree and taken "preventive measures"?

what preventions you would like to see? or which are the ones, you think were the best that God should have applied?

Sailor, Just a couple of things.

First, those pesky quotes, in order to see them quoted properly you need to use double quotes around the person's name like it was shown to you before: [ quote="Daniel" ].

sailornaruto39 wrote:

they are rationally not a factor in reasoning or argumentation.

I have, i have said morals are based on what goals you have and are contextual. You all say a father has to let his kids learn even when he takes preventive measures,but god could have never made the tree and did.

You still are not getting it. God did NOT create the tree to tempt us into sin. God already FOREKNEW we would fall and the tree was a manifestation of that knowledge (a foregone conclusion). The onus then becomes upon you to demonstrate that, armed with such foreknowledge, how God could have created the world any differently and still maintain the free will to choose him (or not).

(Lol Neo, our posts must have waived to each other on the way).

[quote sailornaruto39] "No, it is a fact: if we are here for a purpose - eternal life in Christ - then we are of infinite more value than if we were not.

That proves nothing, someone can just as easliy see that as a bad things, having to deal with the xtian god. With him hell exists."

ah, so you believe hell is real?

but you clearly do not know a lot about this. Hell is not with God, it is separation from God. Better brush up your knowledge before you start blindly attacking something. If you do not know the context of the points you have an objection too, the argument becomes poor.

(Lol Neo, our posts must have waived to each other on the way).

LOL byblos, now I am sure they must have

daniel wrote:it doesn't matter who planted the tree or why?

yes it does, because if it was never there we would probalbly be better off.

It doesn't matter if you don't have a gun yet, you can get it eventually though. Its out there, it is available. Same is the case here, but I think you don't want to see it from this side.

This inevitabl of eventuality is irrelevant to god who controls the existence of things. The tree is perfectly controable to him.

could you however care to elaborate how God COULD have made the tree and taken "preventive measures"?

put it is the cener of the earth... what's your point?

ah, so you believe hell is real?

for the sake of argument

but you clearly do not know a lot about this. Hell is not with God, it is separation from God. Better brush up your knowledge before you start blindly attacking something. If you do not know the context of the points you have an objection too, the argument becomes poor.

that was more towards the idea that god CREATED hell and people can go there. The eternal lake of fire kind. I already know this seperation stuff.


but you clearly do not know a lot about this. Hell is not with God, it is separation from God. Better brush up your knowledge before you start blindly attacking something. If you do not know the context of the points you have an objection too, the argument becomes poor.

Byblos wrote:Sailor, Just a couple of things.

First, those pesky quotes, in order to see them quoted properly you need to use double quotes around the person's name like it was shown to you before: [ quote="Daniel" ].

sailornaruto39 wrote:

they are rationally not a factor in reasoning or argumentation.

I have, i have said morals are based on what goals you have and are contextual. You all say a father has to let his kids learn even when he takes preventive measures,but god could have never made the tree and did.

You still are not getting it. God did NOT create the tree to tempt us into sin. God already FOREKNEW we would fall and the tree was a manifestation of that knowledge (a foregone conclusion). The onus then becomes upon you to demonstrate that, armed with such foreknowledge, how God could have created the world any differently and still maintain the free will to choose him (or not).

(Lol Neo, our posts must have waived to each other on the way).

Ok thanks for the qupote help. But yes that is what iam asking.

sailornaruto39 wrote:then sorry, like i said humans just think with ration and emotions being emotional creatures.

What? Emotional arguments are ruled out of philosophy.

Might as well ask why care about logic.

Well, it seems you already have! I'm asking you for a rational argument against the implications of naturalism; you have steadfastly refused to do so. So yeah, you have practically admitted to no logic.

Nor does it answer the question

What question? Are you related at all to reality?

No, it is a fact: if we are here for a purpose - eternal life in Christ - then we are of infinite more value than if we were not.

That proves nothing, someone can just as easliy see that as a bad things, having to deal with the xtian god. With him hell exists.

How does this disprove my "value" claim? The views of a rebel do not diminish the value. And what bearing does hell have on your claim? You're all over the place, man!

You didn’t answer my ‘free will’ post back in the thread, but would you like to take a shot at it now?

Ok go for it again i don't remember.

Can you prove that a causally determined choice is not a true choice? Go back and find my quote; on page 1 or page 2.

However, your thinking is so muddled here that I don't hold out much hope for a rational discussion.

sailornaruto39 wrote:

Byblos wrote:You still are not getting it. God did NOT create the tree to tempt us into sin. God already FOREKNEW we would fall and the tree was a manifestation of that knowledge (a foregone conclusion). The onus then becomes upon you to demonstrate that, armed with such foreknowledge, how God could have created the world any differently and still maintain the free will to choose him (or not).

... that is what iam asking.

It didn't appear to me that you were merely asking, rather questioning the wisdom and the manner in which God had created the universe and wondering if there were another (better) way. But If you're really asking, then I can tell you emphatically the answer is NO, there isn't another, better way. I can say that with extreme confidence since I am not smarter than a timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent entity and I would venture to guess neither are you or anyone else.

I don't even know how you got me talking about this. what does this have to do with the tree?

You want to understand the meaning of the tree. Yet, I've yet to see you account for anything having TRUE meaning in your worldview. The questioning, as I already said, is to see if you are sincere, or antagonistic. I want you to account for truth, knowledge and TRUE meaning. Not arbitrary feelings, or subjective preferences. Otherwise I see explanations as simply a trip down the beat your head against the wall road.
Based on your reasoning, we could provide reasons till the cows come home, and your basic response is, 'God should've done it differently.' It isn't a real critique. You simply don't like it, and therefore your 'preference' determines truth in your mind.

Lets's see. The creator creates a paradise. Creates man to dwell and tend to it. In essence, to rule over it. The restriction, the ONLY restriction, is do not touch this one thing. Everything else is yours, just don't go there. Well, IMO, this sets up a necesarry dynamic in the relationship. (I don't like all these 'free will' terms and such, but they do fit in this dynamic) It establishes authority and dependency. Elements, that in the whole context of scripture, are revealed as essential and sacred to the creator. The garden was a paradise. The relationship with man was real. But it wasn't a bubble. Satan was allowed to enter. The tree was off-limits. God, knowing all things, also knew every future detail. And thus this dynamic was merely a chapter in the whole story of God, which is yet to play out in this space and time. Now tell me, does this have any meaning to you?

You've made it pretty clear that you think man should be made without the capacity to fail, or sin. Yet, this is totally illogical, because that is NOT a man. It is, well, not a thing at all. You've offered no real alternative. You are who you are. There is no other you.

yes it does, because if it was never there we would probalbly be better off.

Wrong. You wouldn't even be here to consider it. How can something be better? Account for it. Prove it man. All you are saying is that the cosmos would be better without YOU. Think about where you line of reasoing ultimately leads to before you start making claims.

You say subjective preferences do determine right or wrong. Is torturing puppies for pleasure right or wrong? If the majority of a people prefer torturing puppies for pleasure, is it then morally right?

neo-x wrote: but you clearly do not know a lot about this. Hell is not with God, it is separation from God. Better brush up your knowledge before you start blindly attacking something. If you do not know the context of the points you have an objection too, the argument becomes poor.

Blindly attacking something indeed. But that's what atheists do best, Neo They think they're so critical but the moment they open their mouths about this topic, they only prove how little they know.

By the way, Sailor, you never responded to my post either.