Good, because if you were, you'd be failing at it.2) I am not interested in convincing you of anything.
But what exactly are you trying to do? Demonstrate the rampant illogic of your stance?
In total there are 77 users online :: 2 registered, 0 hidden and 75 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1086 on Mon Jul 01, 2024 9:03 am
Good, because if you were, you'd be failing at it.2) I am not interested in convincing you of anything.
What's illogical?Randall R. Young wrote:Good, because if you were, you'd be failing at it.2) I am not interested in convincing you of anything.
But what exactly are you trying to do? Demonstrate the rampant illogic of your stance?
Yes. Creationists use circular reasoning and rationalisation, and they are uneducated, deluded and evasive. Taking pride in these crude epithets, through some misunderstanding of Paul's call to be fools for Christ, can only drive people away from Christianity. It may be a way to reinforce an 'us against the world' mentality, but the likely result is that creationism will dwindle and disappear as a doctrine, to be replaced by theology based on reason.stahrwe wrote: What's illogical?
I suppose you may invoke Circular reasoning
or perhaps Rationalization
Maybe I am illogical because I am Uneducated
Or Deluded
Don't be Evasive
I actually do like the book. I am a fan of Godel and I like turtles.Randall R. Young wrote:If you like acrostics and hidden messages, perhaps you'd enjoy "Gӧdel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid". It won a Pulitzer, so I guess that would qualify it as a quality book.
It doesn't 'translate' to free will. There is a precedent set by the many believers around the world that free will is a necessary component of humanity, and god leaves it alone. Are you telling me that you don't agree with this? You don't think god has any influence obligation to honor our free will?I don't see how, "For any coherence of definition, translates to free will
False. Less than perfect does not lead to the choice to rebel against perfection. That is non-sequitur, a logic fail. Your logic fails here Stahrwe, for the tenth damn time for the same reason. I'm sick of repeating your mistakes back to you. LEARN.People had to be less than perfect as only perfect being is God.
Less than perfect allowed for the choice to rebel against perfection.
No, the implication is that if god were real, the universe would look much much different. This universe we live in, it is precisely the type of universe that lacks a god. A couple calories worth of mental effort on your part would see that I'm right.Despite the failure of Adam and Eve, the implication seems to be that we would be better off having never lived.
STOP MISUNDERSTANDING ME. You have no ground to stand on and defend your dignity if you continue like this. Do you realize how simple the things I'm saying are, that you're either unintentionally or purposefully misunderstanding me.This truly makes no sense. God is immoral because you don't understand Him?
Of course we have our own will. You will have to ask Skinner how free it is.Interbane wrote:It doesn't 'translate' to free will. There is a precedent set by the many believers around the world that free will is a necessary component of humanity, and god leaves it alone. Are you telling me that you don't agree with this? You don't think god has any influence obligation to honor our free will?I don't see how, "For any coherence of definition, translates to free will
People had to be less than perfect as only perfect being is God.
Less than perfect allowed for the choice to rebel against perfection.
Precision dear Watson, precsion. Perhaps you wouldn't be sick if you got things right. I did not say, "...being less than perfect lead to the choice to rebel..."interbane wrote:False. Less than perfect does not lead to the choice to rebel against perfection. That is non-sequitur, a logic fail. Your logic fails here Stahrwe, for the tenth damn time for the same reason. I'm sick of repeating your mistakes back to you. LEARN.
Despite the failure of Adam and Eve, the implication seems to be that we would be better off having never lived.
Calories expended:interbane wrote:No, the implication is that if god were real, the universe would look much much different. This universe we live in, it is precisely the type of universe that lacks a god. A couple calories worth of mental effort on your part would see that I'm right.
This truly makes no sense. God is immoral because you don't understand Him?
You said, "If god chose one way to create the garden of eden, he was already altering free will. He was already deciding upon environmental factors that would influence how adam and eve made their choice. He could have chosen entirely different environmental factors, which would have had precisely the opposite effect on their choice to eat the apple. He could have done this without any greater influence on free will than the default.interbane wrote:STOP MISUNDERSTANDING ME. You have no ground to stand on and defend your dignity if you continue like this. Do you realize how simple the things I'm saying are, that you're either unintentionally or purposefully misunderstanding me.
No, I'm NOT saying that god is immoral because I don't understand him. Show me the sentence that makes you arrive at that conclusion. Type it out nice and slow and reread it until you catch my intent, that meaning that went over your head.
Here is what I mean, please read VERY slowly and think about it. God acts in a way that is immoral, as we define it, as we understand it. Either he is truly immoral, or he doesn't exist. If he acts immorally, and you try to justify it by appealing to his unknowability, that does not mean he instead acts morally. What it means is that he is acting by unknown motives in an immoral fashion.
You can't claim to know some things about god, then turn around and claim that you don't know him at all. We have enough pieces of evidence to ascertain that god acted immorally. He set up Adam and Eve to fail, thereby condemning mankind to an eternity of suffering. What that act allows us to know, at minimum, is that god acts immorally, regardless of whatever his unknowable motives turn out to be.
For your other argument, you've given a few variations of it, but each and every one has failed. There is no characteristic of god that prevents him from creating perfectly moral entities. You hoped to shoehorn one characteristic into that role, but were quickly called on it. This is a great rationalization show, to be honest. You're trying many different variations of reasoning, trial and error style, until you find one that is rational and free of contradictions. Then you'll believe it! It doesn't matter that I've shown each one to be wrong, you'll continue rationalizing until you've made up an entirely new book just to supplement the bible in a way that avoids contradiction. That is how fiction writing works. Storybuilding. It has no system of checks and balances with reality to put your bias in check. It's pure wordsmithing, conjecture without verification. Hypothesizing without experimentation. Like attempting to draw the inside of a house by seeing nothing but the outside, then truly believing you are right. There are infinite possible variations of room layouts, but you choose ONE, based on the most biased criteria in the world. You pick one not by looking in the house to see which matches, but by having faith in whichever one doesn't display contradictions.
The point is, if you choose your beliefs based on which avoid contradiction rather than which corresponds to reality, you have no way to know if what you believe is false. There are an infinite number of possible beliefs about our universe which are simultaneously false yet free of contradiction. False beliefs can be, and many are, free of contradiction. Avoiding contradiction does not make your beliefs true. You need to compare them to reality. You say god has a characteristic that allows for no other entity to be morally perfect; prove it or drop it. It's fabrication, pure and simple. It's not even written in your guide to the universe.