Evidence for God from Science

Danieltwotwenty 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.

errr i never said that, i said the tree to me is symbolic of mans rejection of God and whether the tree existed or not is not the issue here the issue is freewill and mans missuse of that freewill. You have yet to make a logical statement of how God could have created a freewill being that will automatically reciprocate his love without negatively affecting his freewill............ and forget about the treee!!!

ehehehehe!
the tree is what i was asking about!
That is like telling someone who asked what 2+2 is and then telling them to forget about the number, how does my skirt look?
But fine it is a symbol.
I guess i can't (as i have said before -_-). The way i see it the only way to have independant minds is to just come up with random things that come together to produce different things in their head.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

EDIT: ok i think i gave the wrong explanation,sorry. To be ignorant means to lack knowledge. And you say iam ignorant of what? Let's clear that first. And i think a better word to descirbe what you detailed would have been stubborn. Because i know what good's opinion is.

Im not trying to insult you here but you are ignorant of the implications of freewill and what eventualitys occur when it is implimented by God. Stubborness leads to ignorance because your heart and mind are closed to any new information, you have your presuppositions already and are not willing to think logically and objectively.

The implications? Do you mean the things that follow after it? How people get to CHOOSE to love god instead of being preprogrammed to?
And what presuppostions? And what would you call logical and objective?
You have to give me context to be able to tell what you mean bra

ehehehehe!
the tree is what i was asking about!
That is like telling someone who asked what 2+2 is and then telling them to forget about the number, how does my skirt look?
But fine it is a symbol.
I guess i can't (as i have said before -_-). The way i see it the only way to have independant minds is to just come up with random things that come together to produce different things in their head.

I know you were asking about the tree but if it is sybolic you have to talk about what it sybolises not the actual symbol or it is a pointless exercise.
Ok so in your random universe the chances of life actually existing are random so what if life never arises how does God forfill his need for giving and receiveing love? If life does arrive there is still a random chance that they wont love him and would be sinning because through random chance they have rejected God and we are now back to where we started from with the "tree". There are so many more implications in a random chance universe that the list would just go on and on forever. It doesnt really seem like a logical choice that God would make if he wanted to create a being that could reciprocate his love freely.

The implications? Do you mean the things that follow after it? How people get to CHOOSE to love god instead of being preprogrammed to?
And what presuppostions? And what would you call logical and objective?
You have to give me context to be able to tell what you mean bra

Yes implications of events that will transpire after enacting freewill and yes they have the choice.
Your presuppositions is your current world view, everyone has them no one comes from neutral ground.
To think objectively is to try and leave you presuppositions and use logic and reason with a critical eye to examine the evidence piece by piece, but as yet you have just stuck your fingers in your ears and said that you dont like what you see but you are unable to give us a better explanation of how it should be.
Still im not trying to insult you just telling you how it is.

sailornaruto39 wrote:

Danieltwotwenty 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.

errr i never said that, i said the tree to me is symbolic of mans rejection of God and whether the tree existed or not is not the issue here the issue is freewill and mans missuse of that freewill. You have yet to make a logical statement of how God could have created a freewill being that will automatically reciprocate his love without negatively affecting his freewill............ and forget about the treee!!!

ehehehehe!
the tree is what i was asking about!
That is like telling someone who asked what 2+2 is and then telling them to forget about the number, how does my skirt look?
But fine it is a symbol.
I guess i can't (as i have said before -_-). The way i see it the only way to have independant minds is to just come up with random things that come together to produce different things in their head.

It seems more like you are asking what 2+2 is and when people respond with 4, you say it probably would be better if it weren't 4. Infact, it probaby be better if the number never existed and we were never having this conversation. Its hard to understand how you would like to proceed with the discussion from there.

Please define "independent minds".

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

ehehehehe!
the tree is what i was asking about!
That is like telling someone who asked what 2+2 is and then telling them to forget about the number, how does my skirt look?
But fine it is a symbol.
I guess i can't (as i have said before -_-). The way i see it the only way to have independant minds is to just come up with random things that come together to produce different things in their head.

I know you were asking about the tree but if it is sybolic you have to talk about what it sybolises not the actual symbol or it is a pointless exercise.
Ok so in your random universe the chances of life actually existing are random so what if life never arises how does God forfill his need for giving and receiveing love? If life does arrive there is still a random chance that they wont love him and would be sinning because through random chance they have rejected God and we are now back to where we started from with the "tree". There are so many more implications in a random chance universe that the list would just go on and on forever. It doesnt really seem like a logical choice that God would make if he wanted to create a being that could reciprocate his love freely.

I was addressing it as if it were literal,since some people say it is.
And i think your thinking about it too black and white. In this universe it isn't either either they all love me or not.What i meant by random is the same way god did it apparently.I have been asking and no one ha answered it. Could love still have never developed in this universe?

How does he give us our free will?What does he do that makes us subspetible to certain argumentations and logic? Because how our basis of though seems to be by chance.A person has a chance of being either mean or nice.

To think objectively is to try and leave you presuppositions and use logic and reason with a critical eye to examine the evidence piece by piece, but as yet you have just stuck your fingers in your ears and said that you dont like what you see but you are unable to give us a better explanation of how it should be.

Presuppositions? In other words my opinions? What am i trying to look at objectively that i haven't already? I have accepted why god does what he does and that is the way he likes it. I personally would have wanted something different. Like i said with the other just because i understand why someone does what he does don't mean i gotta like it.

And better explanation? I have already gave a PERSONAL stand point many times. I don't get how iam being told that not to have presuppositions when everyone already has a biblical one.

KOGnition wrote:

sailornaruto39 wrote:

Danieltwotwenty 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.

errr i never said that, i said the tree to me is symbolic of mans rejection of God and whether the tree existed or not is not the issue here the issue is freewill and mans missuse of that freewill. You have yet to make a logical statement of how God could have created a freewill being that will automatically reciprocate his love without negatively affecting his freewill............ and forget about the treee!!!

ehehehehe!
the tree is what i was asking about!
That is like telling someone who asked what 2+2 is and then telling them to forget about the number, how does my skirt look?
But fine it is a symbol.
I guess i can't (as i have said before -_-). The way i see it the only way to have independant minds is to just come up with random things that come together to produce different things in their head.

It seems more like you are asking what 2+2 is and when people respond with 4, you say it probably would be better if it weren't 4. Infact, it probaby be better if the number never existed and we were never having this conversation. Its hard to understand how you would like to proceed with the discussion from there.

Please define "independent minds".

well it is hard to tell who is right when 1 person says it is 4(the tree is real)
and the other 3(the tree symbolic).

I shouldn't even still be here,but apparently not liking the way he does things makes me ignorant.

I shouldn't even still be here,but apparently not liking the way he does things makes me ignorant.

No, the way you carried out this argument, earned you that title. You don't agree with God, fine, no ones trying to convert you here. We are often visited with people outside of Christianity, some stick, some don't but it is how you engage in a debate is what counts at the end of the day, some people just vent out and leave, some do hit and run kind of posts, some engage seriously but never agree and some agree partially or in the long run. But all in all, we don't try to waste time. And the way you did that was, well, quite ignorant (no offense). You pointed out objections, when you were called up, you dragged around the subjective opinion tale, and in the end you said, you don't care if you are wrong or right. That kind of drains the whole issue down. If you didn't plan to engage with reason, why waste 7 pages and some 96 replies. You don't have to agree with us, but you do have to be fair, if you plan to have an honest argument with us. Like it was pointed out to you before, this is no place to vent against a god, you don't like very much, with your ears closed and your mouth open. If you have a point, then present it carefully, if not well...the board guidelines make it pretty clear. We don't stop anyone, people spew all kind of stuff here, sometimes pretty rude too. You are entitled to your opinion, but then so are the rest too. I hope you can see that.

As Byblos said, you are not being treated out of malice. I am sorry to see you perceive it as such. But act like this on any forum and I don't think the outcome will be much different, this is my personal opinion. Best of luck to you

neo-x wrote:

I shouldn't even still be here,but apparently not liking the way he does things makes me ignorant.

No, the way you carried out this argument, earned you that title. You don't agree with God, fine, no ones trying to convert you here. We are often visited with people outside of Christianity, some stick, some don't but it is how you engage in a debate is what counts at the end of the day, some people just vent out and leave, some do hit and run kind of posts, some engage seriously but never agree and some agree partially or in the long run. But all in all, we don't try to waste time. And the way you did that was, well, quite ignorant (no offense). You pointed out objections, when you were called up, you dragged around the subjective opinion tale, and in the end you said, you don't care if you are wrong or right. That kind of drains the whole issue down. If you didn't plan to engage with reason, why waste 7 pages and some 96 replies. You don't have to agree with us, but you do have to be fair, if you plan to have an honest argument with us. Like it was pointed out to you before, this is no place to vent against a god, you don't like very much, with your ears closed and your mouth open. If you have a point, then present it carefully, if not well...the board guidelines make it pretty clear. We don't stop anyone, people spew all kind of stuff here, sometimes pretty rude too. You are entitled to your opinion, but then so are the rest too. I hope you can see that.

As Byblos said, you are not being treated out of malice. I am sorry to see you perceive it as such. But act like this on any forum and I don't think the outcome will be much different, this is my personal opinion. Best of luck to you

"No, the way you carried out this argument, earned you that title."
I have been trying to make it clear i know nothing and was here to clear things up. You did that. So i think a better way to say it is that i argued ignorantly. Still ignorant? Not so much,not that it isn't a no.

"you don't care if you are wrong or right."
Wrong about what? "some engage seriously but never agree" Wouldn't i count?

"You pointed out objections, when you were called up, you dragged around the subjective opinion tale"
Ok iam going to translate to better understand.
"You pointed out objections": i called out things that were wrong?
" when you were called up": you all asked why?
"you dragged around the subjective opinion tale": i said it was wrong because of my opinion?

Correct me if iam wrong.

But i see now, i came here to understand gods reasoning. But completely misunderstood even my own argument. Don't see it as a waste of time you all have informed me alot, now i know what i don't agree with.

sailornaruto39 wrote:

neo-x wrote:

I shouldn't even still be here,but apparently not liking the way he does things makes me ignorant.

No, the way you carried out this argument, earned you that title. You don't agree with God, fine, no ones trying to convert you here. We are often visited with people outside of Christianity, some stick, some don't but it is how you engage in a debate is what counts at the end of the day, some people just vent out and leave, some do hit and run kind of posts, some engage seriously but never agree and some agree partially or in the long run. But all in all, we don't try to waste time. And the way you did that was, well, quite ignorant (no offense). You pointed out objections, when you were called up, you dragged around the subjective opinion tale, and in the end you said, you don't care if you are wrong or right. That kind of drains the whole issue down. If you didn't plan to engage with reason, why waste 7 pages and some 96 replies. You don't have to agree with us, but you do have to be fair, if you plan to have an honest argument with us. Like it was pointed out to you before, this is no place to vent against a god, you don't like very much, with your ears closed and your mouth open. If you have a point, then present it carefully, if not well...the board guidelines make it pretty clear. We don't stop anyone, people spew all kind of stuff here, sometimes pretty rude too. You are entitled to your opinion, but then so are the rest too. I hope you can see that.

As Byblos said, you are not being treated out of malice. I am sorry to see you perceive it as such. But act like this on any forum and I don't think the outcome will be much different, this is my personal opinion. Best of luck to you

"No, the way you carried out this argument, earned you that title."
I have been trying to make it clear i know nothing and was here to clear things up. You did that. So i think a better way to say it is that i argued ignorantly. Still ignorant? Not so much,not that it isn't a yes.

"you don't care if you are wrong or right."
Wrong about what? "some engage seriously but never agree" Wouldn't i count?

"You pointed out objections, when you were called up, you dragged around the subjective opinion tale"
Ok iam going to translate to better understand.
"You pointed out objections": i called out things that were wrong?
" when you were called up": you all asked why?
"you dragged around the subjective opinion tale": i said it was wrong because of my opinion?

Correct me if iam wrong.

But i see now, i came here to understand gods reasoning. But completely misunderstood even my own argument. Don't see it as a waste of time you all have informed me alot, now i know what i don't agree with.

sailornaruto39 wrote: well it is hard to tell who is right when 1 person says it is 4(the tree is real)
and the other 3(the tree symbolic).

Understood. But your original post wasn't concerned whether the biblical tree in genesis was a beautiful Spruce Oak bearing Godly fruit or a metaphor for sinful temptation.
Your issue:

sailornaruto39 wrote: 2. The issue of the tree of knowledge. I found the explanation on the main site a lame excuse. I understand the whole choice thing,but responsible prevention to protect the ignorant innocent is the responsible thing to do. I guess if you want to be technical about it it is limiting choice,but why give them that choice. Would any parent seriously put something that serves no purpose that they KNOW will screw their kid over just to give them a choice? That doesn't make any sense. If you knew that your child would injure themselves from playing with a vase you think is ugly and have no reason for buying would you buy it? I wouldn't,because i don't need or ant the vase and it is only going to serve for bad things so why keep it? We wouldn't be puppets, we would be better off, he isn't controlling us, he is just not doing something he doesn't need to do.

So lets not get caught up in semantics. We want to know why can't the tree (or the concept/symbol of the tree) just never exist and there still be free will or "better off" circumstances. (Unless I misunderstood your original inquiry?)

sailornaruto39 wrote: But i see now, i came here to understand gods reasoning. But completely misunderstood even my own argument. Don't see it as a waste of time you all have informed me alot, now i know what i don't agree with.

I too learned a few things from the thread sailornaruto. I'm glad we share that.

I have accepted why god does what he does and that is the way he likes it.

That is who He is. God is absolute.
I enjoy a good philosophical discussion, but I'm a strong believer in prayer. If I could, I would suggest for you to review the Bible for yourself and meditate on what God has revealed about His nature.
His word is that powerful. Sometimes you just have to read it for yourself if you are truly trying to gain an understanding of why He does what He does.

We want to know why can't the tree (or the concept/symbol of the tree) just never exist and there still be free will or "better off" circumstances. (Unless I misunderstood your original inquiry?)

Are you asking if that is what i want to know?
But yes it is.
"I too learned a few things from the thread sailornaruto."
really? Like what? I thought i was making you all bang your heads on the wall XD

sailornaruto39 wrote:

We want to know why can't the tree (or the concept/symbol of the tree) just never exist and there still be free will or "better off" circumstances. (Unless I misunderstood your original inquiry?)

Are you asking if that is what i want to know?
But yes it is.

Indeed, that is what I was asking. And then 90+ responses ensued. But I believe you got a logically sufficient answer for that question.

sailornaruto39 wrote:

KOGnition wrote: "I too learned a few things from the thread sailornaruto."

really? Like what? I thought i was making you all bang your heads on the wall XD

Off the top of my head I am reminded back on page 2 a post Jlay had supplied. It made me think alittle more critically on the type of objections people suppose on the topic of God.

Also, thanks to knowledgeable members, I continue to be directed to passages in the Bible that inspire me to delve deeper. As a consequence, I'm directed to another passage and so on and so forth. I have a lot of studying to do and it is exciting seeing it engaged in a discussion format such as this.

Although I was thoroughly following the discussion; I've only begun to post my responses. Because someone said they were banging their heads against the wall does not mean they speak for me (or others).

Well ok, i guess that does it for now
Iam glad i had this talk, it was rather interesting. I think i have learned a little bit on how to approach things before i speak.

"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? "

you mean this one?
Well it is a bit of a 2 way street question that gets infinitely regressive.

No, just in a better enviorment

There's that better word again.

How so?
would it not be capable of emotions and love? Is that not what god is?

Love is reciprocal. Are robots capable of love? And, no that is not what God is. While we are at it. Define love. How much does it weigh? What color is it? What does is smell like? What does it consist of? In a material world, how do you account for this love?

Anything is real(possible) with god no?

All THINGS are possible. Logical impossibilities are not things. They are absurdities. A man, who is not a man, is an absurdity.

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.

\Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

No it isn't IMO hence the subjective part.

That reply makes no sense. Please clarify.

neo-x wrote:

I shouldn't even still be here,but apparently not liking the way he does things makes me ignorant.

No, the way you carried out this argument, earned you that title. You don't agree with God, fine, no ones trying to convert you here. We are often visited with people outside of Christianity, some stick, some don't but it is how you engage in a debate is what counts at the end of the day, some people just vent out and leave, some do hit and run kind of posts, some engage seriously but never agree and some agree partially or in the long run. But all in all, we don't try to waste time. And the way you did that was, well, quite ignorant (no offense). You pointed out objections, when you were called up, you dragged around the subjective opinion tale, and in the end you said, you don't care if you are wrong or right. That kind of drains the whole issue down. If you didn't plan to engage with reason, why waste 7 pages and some 96 replies. You don't have to agree with us, but you do have to be fair, if you plan to have an honest argument with us. Like it was pointed out to you before, this is no place to vent against a god, you don't like very much, with your ears closed and your mouth open. If you have a point, then present it carefully, if not well...the board guidelines make it pretty clear. We don't stop anyone, people spew all kind of stuff here, sometimes pretty rude too. You are entitled to your opinion, but then so are the rest too. I hope you can see that.

As Byblos said, you are not being treated out of malice. I am sorry to see you perceive it as such. But act like this on any forum and I don't think the outcome will be much different, this is my personal opinion. Best of luck to you

Thanks Neo you just summed up what i was thinking , on that note i am ending my discussion in this thread as i think i have explained my position to the fullest.