Goddamnit who let these thesauruses loose in here?
Oh please go away BigFatWorm in every bloody atheist/religious thread you pile a novel's worth of text, no one cares to read. You also continue to repeat yourself despite people answering.
Those people then get bored and move on because they realise you won't stop typing. Please do something else or atleast do it where it's appropriate I want to read a thread without this nonsense for once.
[editline]18th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;36799153]Why are you guys taking this so seriously, are some of you legitimately autistic? It's just a bloody hobby made for the fun of it by some guy who's probably studying media; because it's put together VERY VERY well. He's no philosopher, but who gives a fuck. Nobody's forcing you to watch all 8 minutes of it. I really enjoyed it.
This whole thread is taking it way too seriously[/QUOTE]
What is with the current trend of throwing around autism as a general insult to any disagreement. Please understand I'm also not taking it seriously so don't jump to assumptions, I'm merely stating this video is pointless because it's based on a simple analogy that could be explained more rigorously in a few seconds, it didn't need to be padded out like this. His other videos are interesting and elaborate whereas this just feels stretched.
[QUOTE]He's speaking of God's law, AKA the commandments, which talks about later in the sermon. By fulfilling them he makes the sins effective not only through action but through thought as well and of course later dies and brings the gift of grace so that we do not have to follow them to come to salvation.[/QUOTE]
That sounds even more reprehensible. So now the content of your character doesn't matter, and the entire damned thing is contingent upon belief. A secular lifeguard would be hellbound, while a Christian rapist would be rewarded. Is this that so-called justice everyone harps on about, when they complain to me how I can believe there's no ultimate punishment for the "bad guys" the police don't catch?
[QUOTE]I can understand that, a lot of the stories are hard to believe in the bible, all I can say is that there's plenty of accurate historical documentation in the bible. Also the reason why people try to make parts of the bible metaphorical is because it's hard to believe at times; creation, Noah's Arc, Jonah, the list goes on. The thing is that the bible states when it is speaking in metphor and when it's not, for all of these stories it isn't and I'm afraid that's all I can say.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that history vastly contradicts the Biblical account. For instance, the Mark and Luke books already contradict each other on the circumstances of Jesus' birth. One of them even places the dating of the event so far from the other that we know King Herod to have been long dead. But that's not even to mention the grand census that told everyone in Herod's kingdom to return to their home town (an excuse by the writer to place Jesus' birth in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth, so he could be within the terms of the prophecy of the Messiah). No such Census (which would have been so radical it would have been detrimental to the land's economy) has ever been recorded in even the slightest mention, aside from the Biblical account. We can only conclude, pending further evidence, that this was an outright fabrication on the part of the author.
[QUOTE]But that is free will, in our society people have the free will to commit a crime or to not commit a crime, sure there's punishment if they commit the crime but they still do it because they have free will. The relationship with God is different than a relationship with say a loved one though, you are expected to love him as a father, respect him like a king and fear him at the same time. As a being that created everything and us he deserves respect and love for making us free creative thinkers, in a small way like him. We must also fear him though as he ill not tolerate unholiness in his presence. It's simply the kind of relationship due to him given his nature.[/QUOTE]
Our laws are written with reason, and our punishments fit the crimes. We do not TORTURE people, and any sentence we meet out is finite, because the CRIME was finite.
God does NOT have the right to do whatever he wants to us just because he supposedly created us. If I created something that was sapient, I'd believe it had the same rights as I do, and that killing it would be MURDER.
And no, he DOESN'T deserve my respect, he deserves only my abject contempt. I think Dawkins described him best:
[I]The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.[/I]
[QUOTE]Sin was not instilled in us from the beginning, this is rather a result of disobeying God through our free will, regardless though it is what was intended so that we could in the end make the choise of folloing him instead of not knowing anything different.[/QUOTE]
I just don't GET you. How do you not SEE that your god SHOULD be disobeyed? How do you not see the homicidal monster? How do you not understand that a ruler should not be something we have to FEAR? This same being that endorses thought-crime and polices us more thoroughly than the worst fascist dictatorship to ever blight the face of the planet?
The funny thing is you sound far more rational than I'd expect of a (somewhat) young-earth fundamentalist Christian, yet you're mired in all of these blindspots that allow you to condone and endorse the will of something that has shown you malevolence with a smile.
[QUOTE]No, the old testament is perfectly legitimate when it comes to God's actions, but the difference is that people had to follow the law(that being God's law) to the letter back then and if they didn't the and failed to sacrifice for the sin then the consequences would take a far more real and brutal manifestation than today.
As for the quotes I don't see how they contradict each other exactly, they both seem to say that who ever is not with God is against him.[/QUOTE]
Really? You can't see the difference between, "Whoever is not with me is against me" and "the one who is not against us is for us"? I have to think you're playing dumb here...
[QUOTE]Hell is actually described as several things; a bottemless pit, a place of torment, a place of sorrows, a place of everlasting destruction, a place of unsatisfied desires and also a lake of fire(although the fire part is mentioned a lot more). Like I said though, hell is inhabited by beings that wish to see the destruction of any creation of God and God himself, it's only natural that they should take advantage of the souls that are present. Hell is foremost a prison, but it's the prisoners that make it what it is described as. I don't like the idea that people are sent to an eternal hell and neither does God, but once they have ascended to an eternal soul there's no other places to go except heaven or hell.[/QUOTE]
I've already addressed this. If God doesn't like it, why doesn't he change it? Why is Hell the ONLY place? Why can't he make ANOTHER place? Is this not within his power? Or is he so paranoid of changing (that thing he already did between the new and old testament) that he's willing to keep the imperfect system just to retain how perfect he supposedly is? While the system itself is imperfect?
Forgive the pun, but it sounds like one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" circumstances.
[QUOTE]It is evidence that life cannot created by circumstantial events, though I suppose if you believe we will eventually find evidence for it there's little I can say in that regard. As for the evolution of single celled organisms to multi celled, are you referring to the algae that are supposedly different stages of evolution from unicellular to multicellular? This is yet again correlation of living species and fossil records, similar to other collections of evidence for evolution.[/QUOTE]
I'm exactly saying that there is room for the evidence to be discovered. There is no reason, in any event, to invoke a supernatural catalyst. At least not until a supernatural force is demonstrated to exist, in which case I'm sure the idea would gain more traction.
As to the multicellular thing, I was referring to this: [url]http://www.geekosystem.com/single-celled-to-multicellular/[/url]
Like I said, "all but observed". This isn't for sure, but it's damn close.
[QUOTE]Since evolution exists within species, is it not possible that these are more primitive versions of the species we have today?[/QUOTE]
Species of what? Ape?
I couldn't say, I'm no anthropologist. Though I'd expect these fossils were found in places humans have been known to inhabit, and that they checked this against known habitats of chimps or orangs.
[QUOTE]Well your mother is not a holy being that will not tolerate sin in her presence, she no more expects you to be sinless than she expects herself to be sinless. God on the other hand will not allow it and cannot form a full relationship with anyone who is less than holy(including Christians of course). As for throwing people into hell for eternity, it's not like god makes you live eternally so that you can be in hell for eternity, it's simply a fact of the soul that it is eternal.[/QUOTE]
Okay, again: is God not the one in charge?
Is he not the guy who DECIDES what sin is? Isn't "sin" ultimately just a bunch of things he doesn't like? These words like "holy" wouldn't exist if he didn't define them. Really, everything comes down to his preferences. What you're essentially telling me is that God keeps people or gets rid of them based solely on what he likes or doesn't like. It's made out to be all big and important and meaningful, but all I see is a five-year-old in a sandbox with his own little secret club.
And doesn't he MAKE the soul eternal?
Look, make up your mind: is God omnipotent, or isn't he? You can't act like he's blameless for things when he has TOTAL control over EVERYTHING.
[QUOTE]Love in a Christian sense is described s being patient, kind, truthful and eternal not arrogant, rude, stubborn, resentful, irritable or rejoicing in wrong-doing. Now even I'm not like that to everyone, but the world would be a lot better if people treated each other with that kind of love. Of course that's not realistic given the fact that you can't love someone you've never seen or talked to before(well usually not) and that's one of the examples of our sinful nature, we just can't supply love to everyone. In any case I believe there to be different kinds of love, of course a father doesn't love a daughter exactly like his wife or like some random stranger on the street. Really what the definition for love offers is a basic structure as to what it should be.[/QUOTE]
Again with this shit of humans having a "sinful nature". Look, we're tribal, social animals, and we're built to forge close relationships with the people in our "tribe". This fully-connected world of billions isn't something we were prepared for. It's not the least bit shocking that we're not flowery to everyone we meet. I like it this way, I like the fact that conflict exists. If we all got along, what could be accomplished? I prefer conflict and cultural progress to peace and stagnation.
[QUOTE]Also yes, it is hard to love someone who you have never seen or talked to directly, but as the creator of everything, including us, and the one who offered as a chance to enter salvation for a such a small act as accepting the gospel message, he is due a certain amount of love, respect and fear. It makes sense that he should demand love above all other things because love above all things for anything else would be idolatry, therefore a sin and intolerable on God's behalf.[/QUOTE]
God hasn't earned himself my love, or even my respect. He's given me no reason to objectively think he exists, which is nonsense, yet he expects me to love him? No sale.
Love kinda' entails... a relationship? Y'know, talking to someone who will talk back? Something I can't chalk up to my mind playing tricks on me?
Why was he so up-front with Adam and Eve about the situation, and reciprocal with them, but now you can't even justify saying he EXISTS?
Why the secrecy? Why threaten punishment for disbelief? Why make "belief" factor into the thing at all?
At every turn, excuses to keep me afraid and mindful of a boogeyman that nobody can prove exists in the first place.
[QUOTE]To get down to it belief in God requires faith, just as any belief about the universe does, it's perfectly reasonable that we should be expected to believe in him because as creative thinkers, we are capable of abstract thought and do not only see the world around us as reality.[/QUOTE]
No no no, fuck faith. This is what I was talking about.
Faith is the EXCUSE people use when they don't have evidence to back up their claim. SCIENCE does not employ "faith" in forming an understanding of the Universe.
Simply put, I cannot BELIEVE in something when I have no REASON to believe it.
If you say you have FAITH, that essentially translates to me that you believe it because you WANT to believe it. I used to be the same way, I know what it was like.
[QUOTE]The universe is partially Good and evil, the issue with good and evil in this world is that the get mixed together so often and so intricately, that is again referenced towards the fallen world and how it deviates from its original design. God created what is right and wrong, if a being created right and wrong it would of course side with what was right, same case for God. We all disagree in some way with what he considers moral because we are all sinners, that isn't to say we are incapable of morality without God as we are all have good AND evil inside of us.[/QUOTE]
Slavery is not moral.
Murder of non-believers and apostates is not moral.
Persecuting and denying gay people the right to love each other is not moral.
And yet God endorses ALL of these things. They are not moral, they are not reasonable. God is not moral because he says so; the reality is he is astonishingly [I]amoral[/I]. I am more moral than your god. YOU are more moral than your god, or at least I suspect you are.
[QUOTE]Well, his human experience didn't end at death, When Christ died he went to hell and then broke free of it's bonds as a symbol that he could do it. He went to hell and freed himself from it so that he could try and keep others from going to hell. Of course God could snap his fingers and send everything back to how it was(in fact he could skip the snapping part altogether), but instead he chose to experience what it is to be human and to go to hell for our sakes.[/QUOTE]
Here's another question:
Why did God need to BECOME human to understand "the human experience?" Isn't he all-knowing? Shouldn't he ALREADY know the human experience? Hell, shouldn't he know what it's like to be a California Redwood? He knows EVERYTHING right?
At any rate, none of this instills in me of feeling of debt. It still feels like a transparent attempt to guilt-trip me, and a disingenuous one at that.
[QUOTE]Well in the context of Christianity, if God created everything than nothing could have created him, therefore making him eternal in his existence which fits into the concept of an eternal spirit. Like I said though, any solid belief in the universe requires a certain amount of faith.[/QUOTE]
We call that one "special pleading".
I hear a lot of theists try to tell me how absurd it sounds for the Universe to exist absent a creator, to have "come from nothing". They'll outright mock the idea that, while I know nothing for certain, it could just be that the Universe or Multiverse exist "just cuz". And yet it's suddenly NOT absurd for a complex supernatural entity to have always existed "just cuz".
I argue that the spontaneous existence of dumb matter and energy is more likely than the spontaneous existence of something cognizant, immortal and omnipotent, by a large factor.
[QUOTE]The only person that can make you a believer is yourself, as much as I try to show reasons for intelligent design I can't prove that God did it because it requires faith to do it. That's why to validate Christianity one must find out through science and history. Things that I have a very limited knowledge in.[/QUOTE]
And I reject faith as a call for me to stop thinking.
I'm pretty sure this is the point where we've become diametrically opposed to each other, and sadly I don't see either of us budging. With your permission, I'd like to end this exchange, because at this point I don't see that we have anything more to discuss that doesn't broil down to "I disagree."
I understand that neither of us seems to be at a point of changing our opinions, and we appear to have horribly derailed this thread. I'd just like to respond to a few of your questions and claims before we finish the discussion(I'll keep from asking any questions or making claims outside of my opinion).
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36828978]That sounds even more reprehensible. So now the content of your character doesn't matter, and the entire damned thing is contingent upon belief. A secular lifeguard would be hellbound, while a Christian rapist would be rewarded. Is this that so-called justice everyone harps on about, when they complain to me how I can believe there's no ultimate punishment for the "bad guys" the police don't catch?[/QUOTE]
But that's what's so wonderful about grace, it doesn't matter who you are or what you've done, the price has already been paid and all you need to do is accept that fact. The only thing that matters is ho you are now and whether you've accepted grace.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36828978]The problem is that history vastly contradicts the Biblical account. For instance, the Mark and Luke books already contradict each other on the circumstances of Jesus' birth. One of them even places the dating of the event so far from the other that we know King Herod to have been long dead. But that's not even to mention the grand census that told everyone in Herod's kingdom to return to their home town (an excuse by the writer to place Jesus' birth in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth, so he could be within the terms of the prophecy of the Messiah). No such Census (which would have been so radical it would have been detrimental to the land's economy) has ever been recorded in even the slightest mention, aside from the Biblical account. We can only conclude, pending further evidence, that this was an outright fabrication on the part of the author.[/QUOTE]
From what I've read of Christ's birth the exact place, time or date of was never recorded in the bible. Although there is reference to a Roman leader Quirinius at the time, who would later become governor of Syria after Herod's death, and in current translations it does say he was governor. Older translations have shown though that the the word used to describe his position is much broader than that of governor, it instead refers to a general state of power. There's even records of Quirinius leading efforts against rebels in Syria during the time of Herod's rule which would mean he did have some degree of political power in the time and area of Christ's birth. There were three large censuses during the time period that were even recorded by Caesar.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36828978]And no, he DOESN'T deserve my respect, he deserves only my abject contempt. I think Dawkins described him best:
[I]The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.[/I][/QUOTE]
It was a very different time under the old covenant, instead of justice for sins occurring after death, God carried out many punishments in the physical world.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36828978]I just don't GET you. How do you not SEE that your god SHOULD be disobeyed? How do you not see the homicidal monster? How do you not understand that a ruler should not be something we have to FEAR? This same being that endorses thought-crime and polices us more thoroughly than the worst fascist dictatorship to ever blight the face of the planet?[/QUOTE]
All I can say that if a man had God's position I would completely agree, but God isn't a governmental entity and he is hardly under the rules of a democracy. As my creator and the one who has promised me salvation through grace I believe he deserves the praise, love and fear he demands.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36828978]Really? You can't see the difference between, "Whoever is not with me is against me" and "the one who is not against us is for us"? I have to think you're playing dumb here...[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I saw in both quotes the general idea of who is not against Christ is for him. I think I see where you're finding the contradiction now. To elaborate on both contexts, in the first quote Christ is referring the comment to the Pharisees who said he draws out demons in the name of Beelzebub(the devil), Chris is simply stating that would not be able to draw out demons in the name of the devil. In the second quote Christ is referring to a man outside of the group of disciples casting out demons in his name, stating that if he is not against them then he must be for them, regardless of whether he's a disciple or not.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36828978]I've already addressed this. If God doesn't like it, why doesn't he change it? Why is Hell the ONLY place? Why can't he make ANOTHER place? Is this not within his power? Or is he so paranoid of changing (that thing he already did between the new and old testament) that he's willing to keep the imperfect system just to retain how perfect he supposedly is? While the system itself is imperfect?[/QUOTE]
Well I can see that you won't accept God as a holy being. So all I can say is that As imperfect beings who were created similar, but much lesser than God himself, we do not know what is best for ourselves(unlike the creator). God is unchanging, so he will not change the laws that he set in place for the universe, including where unholy spirits go.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36828978]Okay, again: is God not the one in charge?
Is he not the guy who DECIDES what sin is? Isn't "sin" ultimately just a bunch of things he doesn't like? These words like "holy" wouldn't exist if he didn't define them. Really, everything comes down to his preferences. What you're essentially telling me is that God keeps people or gets rid of them based solely on what he likes or doesn't like. It's made out to be all big and important and meaningful, but all I see is a five-year-old in a sandbox with his own little secret club.
And doesn't he MAKE the soul eternal?
Look, make up your mind: is God omnipotent, or isn't he? You can't act like he's blameless for things when he has TOTAL control over EVERYTHING.[/QUOTE]
God is in charge, but he doesn't want to interfere with our free will at the same time, he cannot form a full relationship with us because he will not tolerate our unholiness which is a result of our free will. It's really more his choice than something out of his control and it makes sense as sin is a product of the one being that he truly hates, which is Lucifer. Keep in mind though that the devil CHOSE to become what he is, there's no mix of good and evil in his case, he is purely evil.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36828978]Again with this shit of humans having a "sinful nature". Look, we're tribal, social animals, and we're built to forge close relationships with the people in our "tribe". This fully-connected world of billions isn't something we were prepared for. It's not the least bit shocking that we're not flowery to everyone we meet. I like it this way, I like the fact that conflict exists. If we all got along, what could be accomplished? I prefer conflict and cultural progress to peace and stagnation.[/QUOTE]
To me that sounds equally merciless as God sending people to hell. You're saying that millions of people must die from the vastly spread effects of hatred just so that some people can advance above them. It sounds cruel to justify mass suffering, death, hatred and violence for the sake of progress that isn't even a garauntee as a result of the mass suffering, death, hatred and violence.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36828978]God hasn't earned himself my love, or even my respect. He's given me no reason to objectively think he exists, which is nonsense, yet he expects me to love him? No sale.
Love kinda' entails... a relationship? Y'know, talking to someone who will talk back? Something I can't chalk up to my mind playing tricks on me?
Why was he so up-front with Adam and Eve about the situation, and reciprocal with them, but now you can't even justify saying he EXISTS?
Why the secrecy? Why threaten punishment for disbelief? Why make "belief" factor into the thing at all?[/QUOTE]
Well I tried to show how currently there is no reason to believe that life originated from chance as much as God. In the end though one either must make a choice or not make a choice over the origins of everything.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36828978]No no no, fuck faith. This is what I was talking about.
Faith is the EXCUSE people use when they don't have evidence to back up their claim. SCIENCE does not employ "faith" in forming an understanding of the Universe.
Simply put, I cannot BELIEVE in something when I have no REASON to believe it.
If you say you have FAITH, that essentially translates to me that you believe it because you WANT to believe it. I used to be the same way, I know what it was like.[/QUOTE]
Well I must say that I DO want to believe it, faith is the first and most paramount thing about my belief, it is after I have established my faith that I search to validate it. It's somewhat similar to how you have decided that there is no God although there is no exact proof of that either, so you search to validate your faith that we will eventually find the proof that there is no God.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36828978]Slavery is not moral.
Murder of non-believers and apostates is not moral.
Persecuting and denying gay people the right to love each other is not moral.
And yet God endorses ALL of these things. They are not moral, they are not reasonable. God is not moral because he says so; the reality is he is astonishingly [I]amoral[/I]. I am more moral than your god. YOU are more moral than your god, or at least I suspect you are.[/QUOTE]
These are all punishment against sins that were carried out in the old testament and I have stated above, in the world testament penalties for sins ere far more instant and real to the sinner than today. As for denying gay people the right to love each other, that is rather societal law of the time rather than God's law, although homosexuality is still considered a sin.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36828978]Here's another question:
Why did God need to BECOME human to understand "the human experience?" Isn't he all-knowing? Shouldn't he ALREADY know the human experience? Hell, shouldn't he know what it's like to be a California Redwood? He knows EVERYTHING right?[/QUOTE]
He does know everything and his human experience was more for us than for him, so that we could see that he has experienced the same things that we do and ultimately what it is to be human.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36828978]At any rate, none of this instills in me of feeling of debt. It still feels like a transparent attempt to guilt-trip me, and a disingenuous one at that.[/QUOTE]
It shouldn't instil in you the feeling of debt because in the very act of the crucifixion our debt was paid. As Christians we don't feel guilt in Christ's crucifixion, we rejoice over it as God gave us a free gift instead of forcing us to follow his laws towards salvation.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36828978]I argue that the spontaneous existence of dumb matter and energy is more likely than the spontaneous existence of something cognizant, immortal and omnipotent, by a large factor.[/QUOTE]
All I can say is that dumb matter has no order to it, in order to act as a mechanism, matter needs order of some sort. In the case of organic matter this is referred to as life, a flower has the ability to sustain its self whereas a stick does not as it is not alive. The Fox Miller experiment failed horribly at showing that life can occur from random events, time and dumb matter. I know that you believe that we will eventually a way of doing this, but from my perspective that position seems like a faith just as mine.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;36828978]I'm pretty sure this is the point where we've become diametrically opposed to each other, and sadly I don't see either of us budging. With your permission, I'd like to end this exchange, because at this point I don't see that we have anything more to discuss that doesn't broil down to "I disagree."[/QUOTE]
I agree, although I see that you are as steadfast in your views as I am, I must say that this discussion has improved my opinion of you. Regardless of whether we have managed to settle our differences, it's been a pleasure.
pfff...
inb4 massive deba... Oh wait
Dear bIgFaTwOrM12,
We know how fast light moves, we know how far the stars are. That alone disproves the age of the universe mentioned in the Bible.
Thanks,
Grasp
[QUOTE]God isn't surprised by anything as he sees past, present and future. The idea is that he want's us to choose him instead of just follow him because he built us that way.[/QUOTE]
Your god is static then. A cosmic statue that exists everywhere all the time and yet does not have the power to change anything. Being omnipotent must be such a horrifying existence if you are omniscient as well, as there is no longer even the illusion of free will. Eternity is now a straight line that will be walked regardless of what you do, as there is nothing to change. By seeing everything, god has eliminated his control, direction, will, whatever. It is irrelevant. Even if he were to break the rules of time, it wouldn't matter, as it would be foreseen already. Whatever happens is according to plan. The script has been written, and there are no edits ever to be made. In a way, your god ceased to exist the moment he came into being. In that single moment, there was nothing, and then everything was at once, forever. In a way, your god never existed. It never created anything or punished anyone, or even spoke to anyone.
Why? Because when you are everything, you are nothing too. You are determined.
But see, god can't die because even though he cannot speak, or do, or even think, as long as people believe in him he will continue to exist. And here is the problem with an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent [I]character[/I], it is a linear progression with no room for expansion. The master of everything has no free will, no will at all, even. No power to raise or destroy, [I]nothing[/I]. The instant that you know all things, you become omnipresent, and you lock yourself in forever. Because once you are, there is no going back from that point. There is no going anywhere, actually.
You become forever.
The will of the "Lord" is the will of time. It is the will of the universe, it is the natural order. Humans live in time, your god does not. It is because of this simple fact, that the two groups are incompatible, irrelevant, meaningless to each other.
[QUOTE=Grasp;36835308]Dear bIgFaTwOrM12,
We know how fast light moves, we know how far the stars are. That alone disproves the age of the universe mentioned in the Bible.
Thanks,
Grasp
Your god is static then. A cosmic statue that exists everywhere all the time and yet does not have the power to change anything. Being omnipotent must be such a horrifying existence if you are omniscient as well, as there is no longer even the illusion of free will. Eternity is now a straight line that will be walked regardless of what you do, as there is nothing to change. By seeing everything, god has eliminated his control, direction, will, whatever. It is irrelevant. Even if he were to break the rules of time, it wouldn't matter, as it would be foreseen already. Whatever happens is according to plan. The script has been written, and there are no edits ever to be made. In a way, your god ceased to exist the moment he came into being. In that single moment, there was nothing, and then everything was at once, forever. In a way, your god never existed. It never created anything or punished anyone, or even spoke to anyone.
Why? Because when you are everything, you are nothing too. You are determined.
But see, god can't die because even though he cannot speak, or do, or even think, as long as people believe in him he will continue to exist. And here is the problem with an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent [I]character[/I], it is a linear progression with no room for expansion. The master of everything has no free will, no will at all, even. No power to raise or destroy, [I]nothing[/I]. The instant that you know all things, you become omnipresent, and you lock yourself in forever. Because once you are, there is no going back from that point. There is no going anywhere, actually.
You become forever.
The will of the "Lord" is the will of time. It is the will of the universe, it is the natural order. Humans live in time, your god does not. It is because of this simple fact, that the two groups are incompatible, irrelevant, meaningless to each other.[/QUOTE]
The age of the universe(or the Earth) is never stated, the moment a time line begins in the bible is during the six days of creation.
Also this natural order and will of time are all things that are creations of God. You just said that God is locked within the linear progression of time and then said that God is outside of time, if he does not suffer the effects of time then how can he be constrained by them? In fact if he made time and can see past, present and future then he also made everything that would occur in time, so therefore he needn't perform any revisions to what occurs in time because he made it so from the beginning. As a being that views time from the outside he simply does what is necessary at the right time.
TLDR
You shouldn't argue with people like bIgFaTwOrM12 because no matter what you say they just won't shut up and even if they're about to lose an argument they just call it the devils work.
Dear bIgFaTwOrM12,
Please take your debate bullshit to its proper fourm
Sincerely, dvc
P.S You smell
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
