Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Still ongoing.
Debate Room / Re: Lukvance and OAA debate the existence of a god
« Last post by Lukvance on Today at 05:06:49 PM »
I'm still waiting for his quotes. :)
I also thought that "infallible" meant "unable to make a mistake". That would mean that A and E had perfect brains. They did not make any mistakes and eating the apple was therefore part of god's plan for humanity.

The fall from grace, the sin, the suffering, the cursed existence to be saved by the sacrifice Jesus-- all planned out in advance, and made necessary by god himself. A god like that would indeed be a tricky dicky. Worthy of fear and wariness, but not love, worship or even basic respect.

If A and E were capable of making a mistake, they were made with brains that were wired wrong from the get-go. Eating the apple was therefore not a part of god's plan for humanity. It was a screw up.

A god like that would be a bumbling incompetent, a maker of shoddy products. You might be able to love such a god, the way you love crazy old Uncle Billy. But no way could you trust, respect and certainly not worship such a being. In fact you could probably figure out how to trick this god yourself.

How do we get from the A and E story to the god worthy of worship again?  :?
rejecting “God” was not a mistake
It wasn't because we had a fallible brain that we made this mistake. Infallible brains are allowed to do mistakes like loving the wrong person. The information Adam and Eve had was false (given by the snake). Adam and Eve could have had infallible brain and still make this choice.

God is still perfect in the sense that his plan isn't short term like our lifetime. I believe that His original plan was for Adam and Eve to live forever in the garden of Eden (and in one of our parallel universes it is what happened) Now the plan adapted so we can live forever, by his side, after our death.

Ps : Thank you for your clarifications.
Would Jesus need to be born at those planets to save them?  :angel:
He has a BA which includes environmental biology and he was a school teacher. So he would have enough intelligence to con people but he could just be deluded.
Can you provide a link to the papers written by the Catholic Church or a theologian which detail what would show that “God” does not exist?
Why would I do that? How does it help proving the existence of God outside our body?

If you had any clue about science then you would know why and how.

Your questions prove my point and the point of so many others in this thread.  Thank you.
Seems to me that the Higgs Boson is your only defense mechanism. And ironically, it is not. There can't be specialists about something that doesn't exist or been discovered yet.
General Religious Discussion / Re: Young Earth per Answers in Genesis
« Last post by jdawg70 on Today at 04:31:47 PM »
Is it possible that Ken Hamm is actually trying to destroy Christianity?

Sorta like:

Where Ham is potentially a plant (perhaps he himself did the planting) within the 'inner circles' of fundamentalism in order to subvert the organizations from within by ensuring their contradictory and/or illogical viewpoints are visible to the public at large?

I'll say this...I do not discount the possibility.
1. You need to understand that if you apply it to miracle, you have to apply it the same way to HB.
So, from our perspective people who were specializing in the Higgs Boson particle before its discovery, specialized in something that didn't exist?
Was their expertise for nought?
No one specialized in the Higgs boson particle before it was discovered. The Higgs boson particle was a prediction which either did or did not exist.  Particle physicists were trying to find out if it did or did not exist. 
What seriously? There must be a mistake in what I understand.
You say that no one researched the Higgs Boson before it was discovered? No one ever wrote a paper about the Higgs boson before it was discovered!?
Or you say that you don't have to be a specialist to write a paper on Higgs Boson particle and that every paper wrote on it before its discovery weren't made by specialists?
Maybe it's the word specializing that you don't like? you can change it for another one more appropriate. It doesn't matter you say no specialist in HB before one was discovered, I say no specialist in miracles before one was discovered.

Can you provide a link to the papers written by the Catholic Church or a theologian which detail what would show that “God” does not exist?
Why would I do that? How does it help proving the existence of God outside our body?

2. Again you are making the assertion that God does not exist without proving it. I understand that It can be hard/impossible to prove that something does not exist and this should be one of the reason why you shouldn't use the "non-existence" of something as an argument.
[...]Your assumptions and what you think are not good enough.
Of course they are not. We are in the process of making them good enough. That's the purpose of a discussion. Nevertheless, you can't use the "non-existence" of something as an argument against the existence of something. ("No! It doesn't exist so your proof doesn't prove that It does exist (your proof is not valid because it doesn't exist) ")
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10