I think i might have said something along these lines. Something like god did it to get the whole thing rolling.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.
No, just in a better enviorment.Since he wants this free will thing predisposing them to do good wouldn't count. So iam going with that it was left subject to chanceyou've made it pretty clear that you think man should be made without the capacity to fail, or sin.
How so?Yet, this is totally illogical, because that is NOT a man. It is, well, not a thing at all.
would it not be capable of emotions and love? Is that not what god is?
Anything is real(possible) with god no?You've offered no real alternative.
so sorry i thought that said agnostic. But no iam not here to pester. I guess i tangled with too many people at once and got really confused. I eventually found contradictions in what iam saying.I already said, is to see if you are sincere, or antagonistic.
I can't argue against that, it's your opinion.Well, IMO, this sets up a necesarry dynamic in the relationship.
And?Wrong. You wouldn't even be here to consider it.
With this it helped me understand what you were talking about in another post. Saying something like the only way i can definitely say something is better is for it to have objective value first.How can something be better? Account for it. Prove it man.
It just might be O.OAll you are saying is that the cosmos would be better without YOU.
No it isn't IMO hence the subjective part.Is torturing puppies for pleasure right or wrong? If the majority of a people prefer torturing puppies for pleasure, is it then morally right?
@monica
1.Not an atheist, said that in the first postBut 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.
2.I don't while i assume alot i will admit it is out of ignorance which is why i am trying so hard, i want no doubt.
3."they open their mouths about this topic, they only prove how little they know."
Right back cha ;D
sorry iam juggling so much that i loose track XDBy the way, Sailor, you never responded to my post either.
@all: Ok i think i ultimately get it(did i not already say that?),with a combination of realizing errors in what i have been trying to argue against i conclude the following
If god wants this whole free will, suffering make us bond shtick. The by all means tornadoes are the way to go.
And from what i have gathered from jlay's last post the tree was to set it all in motion.
And since this is how god wants to do it... and it isn't logically contradictory(mostly, i say that because iam still processing it) then by all means go for it. Iam just going to sit here and disagree full heatedly... And on what basis?.... My opinion. I don't believe in ANY of it, i just took it seriously for the sake of understanding the reasons behind it. I guess i was blinded with disagreement that i almost ended up in a logical gymnastics trying to make sense of it all XD. But please just don't give bad examples like the match one. They are no where near the same thing, not even metaphorically,they were close but were missing 2 key things. No good parent(the the typical sense of the word) would KNOW that something really bad would happen to their kid and let it.
And iam sorry if i offended anyone, iam just a little jocular and aggressively passionate. I mean no harm. But thanks, i couldn't disagree with it MORE,but hey. I came to know why and i know now XD
