Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > <snip> > > >>> Tokay, >>> An omnipotent and omniscient God can do anything that he wants to do. In >>> this case, he gave us free will. At the end of our test period (on this >>> earth), he will make a judgement on whether we loved God or turned our >>> backs on God. I made the choice of loving God. It's up to you about >>> whether to love God or turn your back on God. If you end up in hell, it's >>> not God's fault--it will be your fault. I don't understand why anyone >>> would want to spend eternity in hell. One person told me that he did not >>> believe there was a heaven or hell. That person is taking a really big >>> gamble. If he is wrong, he will spend eternity in hell. >>> >>> >> Still not addressing what I said. >> >> It is your claim that god is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. >> >> Sure, he can give me free will. He can do anything, right? >> But if he knows everything, he knows what I will do. And since you claim >> that he is also all-loving, he lets me burn in hell. >> >> Ehm... >> Does not sound very loving to me.... >> >> Mind you, it was you who made these claims, not me. >> >> I don't claim to believe in this bozo. How can I? (yeah, on principle >> sure, but in this particular bozo?) >> Again: He can do anything (that's "omnipotent". Look it up in whatever >> dictionary you like. "Can do everything". That's what that word means). >> And christians said he did it all. Some differ on what amount of it he >> actually did "himself", but whether you start at the big bang or last >> Thursday, he did it. >> And also, if he is omniscient (look it up. Knows everything, that's what >> it means), he knew exactly what would happen. Only way. If he is >> omniscient, then he knew. Again. If he is omniscient, then he knew. Or >> he would not be omniscient. >> Correct, so far? Or do you want to argue that? >> >> So, he knows all. That means he knows also what I believe or don't >> believe. And he also knows if I ever would change my mind (hardly). He >> knows. He is omniscient. Still, your claim, not mine. >> >> So, he created everything, whether at the Big Bang, or 6000 years ago or >> last thursday. And knew what he created and would happen. Again, that's >> omniscient. >> No way around it. > > Hello, > I understand what you are saying and once had a Christian friend who would > discuss these same points until it caused me to avoid him. I believe that > he had some sort of obsession about these issues. I don't worry about > these issues. It's really not complicated but you are trying to make it > much more complex than it is. The bottom line is God is omniscient, > omnipotent and benevolent. As a result, he could decide on how to create > the means necessary for people to get into heaven and to have a > relationship with him. The plan of salvation and eternal life is outlined > in the Bible. The summary version of the plan is that God wants us to love > him and obey him if we want to have fellowship with God and eventually go > to heaven. People have free will and choose to love God or hate God. God > (if he wanted to) could have done it a different way. You can't blame God > if you decide to turn your back on God. > Then he is either not omniscient or not benevolent. > >> He knows what I do, he knows what I think and what I will think. Still. >> That's omniscient. >> And still your claim, not mine. >> >> So. Pay attention. >> >> He fully knew all that when he created everything. Whether that was last >> Thursday or 6000 years ago or at the Big Bang. >> >> So he did it on purpose. I had no say in it. What it comes down to is he >> created me that way (that is exactly what you are saying). >> >> Or do you want to argue that? That he didn't know then what would happen >> today? You claim he is omniscient, so he did know. Or he is not >> omniscient. >> >> So I have no choice. I am created that way. >> >> Ok, that deals with the "free will". Simply not possible. >> >> So he created me that way and because he did, I will burn in hell? > >> So whose fault is it, then? Mine? When I never had a choice? >> Hardly. > > If you end up in hell, it will be YOUR fault and not God's fault. You do > have a choice. The choice is to love God or to hate God. If you love God, > you will not end up in heaven. If your choice is to hate God, you will up > in hell. A benevolent God can also be a loving God that made a way for you > or anyone else to gain salvation and eternal life. Since he created everything and knew what would come of it, he knew it all before. So where does "choice" enter into it? He created it and he knew it. How can there be a way for me to choose? Over 70 percent of > Americans are hoping to go to heaven. Just proves what I said at another point. 70% and that in a country with by far the biggest military... And some very questionable foreign politics.... (But let's not go into that, please). Millions of Chinese people are > secretly worshipping and loving God and having church services in the > homes of people. As express by percentage, thats a bit few.... One billion Chinese? 1.5? Something like that. > > >> And if that cosmic zombie actually has the guts to blame it on me, how >> on EARTH can you stand there and still claim he is benevolent? Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:10:34 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >Robyn, >I fully realize that atheists and members of religions other than >Chistianity such as Buddahism do good deeds. >Jason > But that contradicts the bible. Remember Psalms 14:1/53:1? Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Don Kresch wrote: > In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 16:34:08 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > >> In article <jq-dnZbrc6MQqtvbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> >>> Jason wrote: >>>> In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >>>>> Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other >>>>> choices open up. >>>>> >>>>> In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep >>>>> sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god. >>>>> >>>>> I understand. I once feared the same demon. >>>> On judgement day, you will really be shocked. >>> If I die and am still conscious, I will be shocked. I am >>> looking forward to being dead, someday. Life, without end, >>> in any form, is unimaginably horrible for me. >>> >>> Judgment and anything it involves will be small, compared to >>> that shock. >> But what if you are wrong and you end up standing in front of the >> judgement seat of God. >> > What if you're wrong and you end up standing in front of > Shiva? Damn.... I thought Odin's Valkyries would take me to Valhalla... (Which by the way, would be a great place to be.... If I absolutely had to choose a religion, this one is pretty nice. And none of that "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent" crap) Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > There is a big difference between believing that God created life from > > non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. > (snip) > > You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god > that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable > properties that must produce life after the right amount of > cause and effect has modified its matter. > > Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for it is for me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. If I saw a new car setting in a junk yard, I would not assume or believe that the car must have come about from an explosion that happened at that junk yard. It would be easier for me to believe that car was designed and created. When Einstein was asked about this subject, he pulled out his pocket watch and showed it to the reporter that asked the question. He stated, "This watch had a designer and life had a designer." I agree with Einstein Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f25fp6$33o$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >>> <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> There is a big difference between believing that God created life from >>>>> non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god >>>> that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable >>>> properties that must produce life after the right amount of >>>> cause and effect has modified its matter. >>>> >>>> Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for it is for >>> me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. >>> >>> If I saw a new car setting in a junk yard, I would not assume or believe >>> that the car must have come about from an explosion that happened at that >>> junk yard. It would be easier for me to believe that car was designed and >>> created. >> You mistake "evolution" for "chance". >> Look up the "perfect 747" one of these days and why it is not applicable. >> >> Abiogenesis "might" actually have an aspect of "chance". But even chance >> can have results, if given enough time. If you play the same lottery >> numbers long enough you almost certainly will win. You just have to >> play them for 50.000 years or so (that's a wild guess. Oh, well. I just >> did the maths. Was a wee bit wrong. On average you'd have to play for >> 1442307 years and a few months....Wups. One and a half million years....). >> Still, be are talking billions of years for abiogenesis and evolution >> combined. And you only need the starting point. >> Evolution has nothing to do with chance. Far from it. > > Someone recently posted an article written by a scientist about the > complexity of a living cell. I was shocked when I read the article because > I had forgotten how complex a cell really is. I do not believe a living > cell could come about by chance. A living cell is more complex in design > than a new computer or a new Lexus. That's the reason I believe there was > a creator. For the sake of discussion, let's say that a living cell could > come about by chance or evolve from non-life. If that were true, a > scientist could develop the conditions necessary to make it happen. > Scientists have tried to do that and they have failed. On the other hand, > there are lots of people like yourself that believe that it just happened > by chance. Unless a scientist can design an experiment that causes life to > evolve from non-life, I will continue to believe in a creator God. > jason There are some other quotes along these lines, you know. Let's see if I can remember some.... (Pretty free retyping....) "640K will be enough for everyone" (Bill Gates, I think) "Aeroplanes? Nice, but no use to the army/navy" (some general or other) It goes on that way.... Oh, and a nice one.... "Good luck, Mr. Gorsky" (Neil Armstrong) > >> >>> When Einstein was asked about this subject, he pulled out his pocket watch >>> and showed it to the reporter that asked the question. He stated, "This >>> watch had a designer and life had a designer." I agree with Einstein >>> Jason >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Since you seem to hate snipping, I leave that in and only add that I >> don't think Einstein said anything like that or meant a "creator" in >> sense of a god. > > Einstein did not say what he meant when he used the term designer. > > Other quotes from Einstein do not support this quote. Do you happen to have a link from where you got that quote? I still don't think he said anything like that. Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <esgc43h06ki5neitn538nm7s4t7bcq8f6k@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 16:11:58 -0700, Jason@nospam.com >> (Jason) let us all know that: >> >>> In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >>> <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>> There is a big difference between believing that God created life from >>>>> non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god >>>> that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable >>>> properties that must produce life after the right amount of >>>> cause and effect has modified its matter. >>>> >>>> Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for it is for >>> me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. >> Easier isn't necessarily correct. >> >> >>> When Einstein >> Cite please. > > Nightline had a special related to a debate between two oupspoken > Christians and two outspoken atheists. One of the Christians used the > quote from Einstein related to the watch. But where did he get it from? Otherwise it is just hearsay. Tokay -- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books. Francis Bacon Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 <snip> > > Tokay, > > An omnipotent and omniscient God can do anything that he wants to do. In > > this case, he gave us free will. At the end of our test period (on this > > earth), he will make a judgement on whether we loved God or turned our > > backs on God. I made the choice of loving God. It's up to you about > > whether to love God or turn your back on God. If you end up in hell, it's > > not God's fault--it will be your fault. I don't understand why anyone > > would want to spend eternity in hell. One person told me that he did not > > believe there was a heaven or hell. That person is taking a really big > > gamble. If he is wrong, he will spend eternity in hell. > > > > > > Still not addressing what I said. > > It is your claim that god is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. > > Sure, he can give me free will. He can do anything, right? > But if he knows everything, he knows what I will do. And since you claim > that he is also all-loving, he lets me burn in hell. > > Ehm... > Does not sound very loving to me.... > > Mind you, it was you who made these claims, not me. > > I don't claim to believe in this bozo. How can I? (yeah, on principle > sure, but in this particular bozo?) > Again: He can do anything (that's "omnipotent". Look it up in whatever > dictionary you like. "Can do everything". That's what that word means). > And christians said he did it all. Some differ on what amount of it he > actually did "himself", but whether you start at the big bang or last > Thursday, he did it. > And also, if he is omniscient (look it up. Knows everything, that's what > it means), he knew exactly what would happen. Only way. If he is > omniscient, then he knew. Again. If he is omniscient, then he knew. Or > he would not be omniscient. > Correct, so far? Or do you want to argue that? > > So, he knows all. That means he knows also what I believe or don't > believe. And he also knows if I ever would change my mind (hardly). He > knows. He is omniscient. Still, your claim, not mine. > > So, he created everything, whether at the Big Bang, or 6000 years ago or > last thursday. And knew what he created and would happen. Again, that's > omniscient. > No way around it. Hello, I understand what you are saying and once had a Christian friend who would discuss these same points until it caused me to avoid him. I believe that he had some sort of obsession about these issues. I don't worry about these issues. It's really not complicated but you are trying to make it much more complex than it is. The bottom line is God is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. As a result, he could decide on how to create the means necessary for people to get into heaven and to have a relationship with him. The plan of salvation and eternal life is outlined in the Bible. The summary version of the plan is that God wants us to love him and obey him if we want to have fellowship with God and eventually go to heaven. People have free will and choose to love God or hate God. God (if he wanted to) could have done it a different way. You can't blame God if you decide to turn your back on God. > He knows what I do, he knows what I think and what I will think. Still. > That's omniscient. > And still your claim, not mine. > > So. Pay attention. > > He fully knew all that when he created everything. Whether that was last > Thursday or 6000 years ago or at the Big Bang. > > So he did it on purpose. I had no say in it. What it comes down to is he > created me that way (that is exactly what you are saying). > > Or do you want to argue that? That he didn't know then what would happen > today? You claim he is omniscient, so he did know. Or he is not > omniscient. > > So I have no choice. I am created that way. > > Ok, that deals with the "free will". Simply not possible. > > So he created me that way and because he did, I will burn in hell? > So whose fault is it, then? Mine? When I never had a choice? > Hardly. If you end up in hell, it will be YOUR fault and not God's fault. You do have a choice. The choice is to love God or to hate God. If you love God, you will not end up in heaven. If your choice is to hate God, you will up in hell. A benevolent God can also be a loving God that made a way for you or anyone else to gain salvation and eternal life. Over 70 percent of Americans are hoping to go to heaven. Millions of Chinese people are secretly worshipping and loving God and having church services in the homes of people. > > And if that cosmic zombie actually has the guts to blame it on me, how > on EARTH can you stand there and still claim he is benevolent? > > > > Tokay > > > P.S.: Oh, and if your only answer is "It is that way and basta" don't > bother to answer. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <jq-dnZbrc6MQqtvbnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > >> Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other > >> choices open up. > >> > >> In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep > >> sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god. > >> > >> I understand. I once feared the same demon. > > > > On judgement day, you will really be shocked. > > If I die and am still conscious, I will be shocked. I am > looking forward to being dead, someday. Life, without end, > in any form, is unimaginably horrible for me. > > Judgment and anything it involves will be small, compared to > that shock. But what if you are wrong and you end up standing in front of the judgement seat of God. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <f25ev3$mb3$00$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <464627b9$0$21840$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > > <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <4645e8ec$0$6946$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > >>> <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <4644db72$0$6942$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>, Martin > >>>>> <usenet1@etiqa.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no > >>>>>>> proof that it ever happened. > >>>>>> errr HELLO! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You might not exist, but I believe I do. Therefore life _came_ (not > >>>>>> evolved) from non-life > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What the hell are you on about? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Even if you belive your shite about god, then you also belive life came > >>>>>> from non-life, what was all that crap about dirt and breathing in life? > >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>>>> > >>>>> There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from > >>>>> non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural > >>>>> materials and create life from that natural materials. It's much easier > >>>>> for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to > >>>>> believe. > >>>> You stated "Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life." > >>>> > >>>> Are you now backtracking on that statement? > >>> Not really. It must be faith because there is no evidence that live > >>> evolved from non-life. > >> Your own fucking bible states that life came from non-life. What the > >> hell are you on man? > >> > >> Whether it was puffed into existance or came from self-replicating > >> molecules, life came from non-life one way or another. Go back 4.5Gyears > >> and the earth was a ball of molten rock, now it's teaming with life. > >> What does that tell you? Once there was no life, now there is. If life > >> didn't come from non-life where the hell DID it come from > >>> > > > > There is a big difference between believing that God created life from > > non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. > > > > Let's say that I used a helecopter to place a brand new car deep in a > > jungle that a tribe of people lived in that had never before seen a > > vehicle. > > > > Perhaps some of those people may believe the car came about as a result of > > natural forces. Perhaps some of the other people may believe the car was > > designed and created. > > > > Do you see my point? > > Jason > > > > > > Ever heard of "Cargo-cult"? > > > Tokay No Quote
Guest Steve O Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 "Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:l9hc4397k7375tbe40ikt1vfsrm4b9admr@4ax.com... > In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:49:10 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: >>> >> God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he >>> >> wants to >>> >> do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you reply, >>> >> please >>> >> don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that >>> >> the >>> >> last time. >>> > >>> > The saying is "omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent". Which just is >>> > not >>> > possible. At least one of the three is a contradiction. Make your >>> > pick. >>> > >>> I don't think he really understands the implications in order to pick >>> one. >>> He just doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand why free will >>> and an >>> omnipotent, omniscient creator God are contradictory. >> >>I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. > > And did god create everything? If so, then there's no free > will. > Let's see if I can spell this one out for him as simple as possible so he can follow the argument... Jason, I'd like you to answer the following questions with a "yes" or "no" or " don't know"... 1.Did your God create everything? 2. Does your God know everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen?(omniscience) 3. Can your God do anything?(omnipotence) 4. Do you have free will? 5. Does your god know exactly what you are doing right now? 6. Does your God know exactly what you will do tomorrow? 7. Do you have a choice as to what you do or don't do tomorrow? 8. Are you capable of doing something tomorrow which your God does not know about? 9.When God created the universe, did he know everything that vwas about to happen? 10. Is there any way at all you can change what God already knows you are going to do tomorrow? 11.Do you still believe you have free will , and can change anything that God knew about or would know about from the start of creation? Hope those questions weren't too much trouble for you, I'd be interested to see your response. Quote
Guest John Popelish Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 Jason wrote: > Someone recently posted an article written by a scientist about the > complexity of a living cell. I was shocked when I read the article because > I had forgotten how complex a cell really is. (snip) Keep in mind that the cells being discussed have been evolving for some 4.5 billion years. They have come a long way from the earliest cells. Most are also collaborations of several earlier cell types, with lots of clues remaining about who enveloped who and how they managed to cooperate instead of one eating the other. The wonderful thing about life, is that it keeps lots of old photos in the attic, so to speak, and biological science is unraveling a lot of neat details about this rich history. If you are interested in reading about this complex story, or at least, some of what has been unraveled, so far, I suggest: "Tracing the History of Eukaryotic Cells (the enigmatic smile)" by Betsey Dexter Dyer and Alan Obar. Quote
Guest Ralph Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1105071716250001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1178923441.783791.47270@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote: > >> On May 11, 6:39 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > Please re-read your own words very carefully. My theory is that God >> > created life. Facts support my theory. >> >> What a LIAR you are! You couldn't come up with even one supported >> fact for your case when I challenged you on it. You ran away. So why >> are you still telling this lie? >> >> Post your supported "facts" right here or quit LYING. >> >> Budikka > > The facts are in this book. If you choose not to read the facts--that's > not my fault: > > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow > A thorough examination of all the pre-human fossils You need to read "The Antiquity of Man" by Mikey Brass. He does an absolutely splendid job in destroying the arguments of Lubenow. You amuse me by barging in here and assuming that none of us have read anything. As I told you earlier, I have Darwin's 'famous book' and another 'not so famous book'. In addition I have numerous books on science, creation and theology. You should read some 'famous' books one day. You could start with 'The Antiquity of Man'. Quote
Guest Steve O Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1205071730250001@66-52-22-33.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <ragc43t77bh612omlhsvbtv2oc0s04mdld@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 12 May 2007 15:39:42 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-1205071539420001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> > >> > >> >On judgement day, you will really be shocked. >> > >> There is no evidence that there will be a judgement day. There is no >> evidence that any gods exist. There is no evidence that the god you >> worship is the right god. There is no evidence that you won't be the one >> going to hell for worshipping the wrong god. > > Not true--the WRITTEN evidence is in the Bible. In many courts in America, > written evidence such as contracts are deemed very important. Do you consider ALL written evidence to be very important? How about the Qu'ran, or the Baghvad Ghita, or the Book of Mormon, or even a book describing how the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed everything into existence, because I can certainly show you one? Or if not, why do you suppose that YOUR particular book is more correct and more important than any of the others? -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack "The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long enough" Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <nghc43dkr6g440lgl6fd82t0q80on9kcm0@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:10:34 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >Robyn, > >I fully realize that atheists and members of religions other than > >Chistianity such as Buddahism do good deeds. > >Jason > > > But that contradicts the bible. Remember Psalms 14:1/53:1? > Don, I just read it. It's an interesting scripture. It's great to know that you own a Bible. Check John 3:16. That scripture is so popular that I see people at professional football games holding up signs that say John 3:16. Jason Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 2:20 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178959272.270390.108...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 12, 2:03 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1178942839.714408.118...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 12, 3:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > Of course, mandantory sentencing played a role. It's my opinion that the > > > > > rise in atheism also played a role. > > > > > Another wrong assumption. > > > > > > I realize that many of the people are > > > > > atheists are kind and wonderful people. Many high school teachers and > > > > > college psychology professors are teaching courses in "situational > > > > > ethics". I took one of those stupid classes. The professor told us > that in > > > > > some cases, it's alright for a straving person to steal food; for > > > > > relatives to kill elderly people that were disabled--I believe the term > > > > > was "euthanatize"; For women to kill their unborn babies--abortion. I > > > > > don't believe she told us that in some situations that it would be > alright > > > > > to rob a bank or cheat on your taxes--but my memory is not perfect. > > > > > Situational Ethics means that people can violate the law if that person > > > > > has a good reason for violating the law. Those situational ethics > classes > > > > > will cause the crime rate to go even higher in the years to come. Shop > > > > > lifting was not a major problem in the 1950's and 1960's. I > challenge you > > > > > to google shoplifting statistics. Without any research, I know that it's > > > > > more of a problem now than it was in the 1960's or 1970's. > > > > > I think you missed the point. "Situational ethics" does not mean > > > > "It's okay to commit crimes". The point of situational ethics is for > > > > people to rationally consider whether their laws are in fact morally > > > > correct rather than just blindly following them. If you were in Nazi > > > > Germany and the law required you to turn in your neighbour (who just > > > > happens to be Jewish), would it still be morally right to follow the > > > > letter of the law? > > > > Good points. I don't believe you have considered the consequences if > > > everyone practiced situational ethics. In the long run, people would no > > > longer obey laws unless they were advocates of those laws. > > > Jason, > > I don't think you've considered the consequences of democracy. In the > > long run, laws will no longer exist if the majority of people are not > > advocates of these laws. > > > > They would run > > > red lights if they were late for work; euthanatize elderly relatives; > > > steal food if they were hungry; steal clothing if they did not have money > > > to buy new clothing; murder unborn babies; go 20 mph above the speed > > > limit, etc etc--many of those things are already happening. I saw a > > > security guard patrolling inside a large grocery store earlier today. It's > > > my guess that in the 1950's and 1960's--none of the grocery store owners > > > had security guards patrolling the grocery store. > > > And in Moslem countries, women will start to dress how they like, > > people will be free to follow whatever religion they choose and what > > people drink, read, listen to, watch on TV or do in the bedroom would > > be a matter of personal choice rather than legislation. "Situational > > ethics" enables us to remove ourselves from the situation we find > > ourselves in and ask ourselves if our laws are truly advocating > > morality or oppressing people who are doing no harm to anybody, > > perhaps not even themselves. > In other words, let's just eliminate all laws and let people use > situational ethics to decide how to live their lives. That would be great > since I love speeding. I could buy a new 8 cylinder Ford Mustang and drive > it over 120 mph on the freeway. Jason, All laws not embedded in the constitution are up for change. It is only those laws which will make sense to people in the future which will stand the test of time. Most laws will stand and will be obeyed by good citizens, including atheists. This whole argument is a red herring. You are starting with the assumption that atheists lack morals and are therefore concluding that atheists will not obey laws. That is nothing short of pure bigotry on your part. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 2:42 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178955188.610779.153...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 12, 9:40 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he wants to > > > do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. > > > Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? Can God see > > what He will do tomorrow and then change his mind? > > > > If you reply, please > > > don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that the > > > last time. > > > Stop typing these "Do not snip" sentences if you don't want them > > snipped. > > That person was snipping half of my sentences in order to quote me out of > context. That's a cheap way to win a debate. So is lying, but that hasn't prevented you from trying to slip some past us. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 2:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178952813.290283.81...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On 11 Maj, 23:59, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > >It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually sin so he > > > > >had a plan prepared. > > > > > But if they were created perfect, they wouldn't sin. > > > > Good point. They were NOT created perfect. > > > The Bible says they were. > > > >God did not want programmed > > > robots that would be programmed to worship him. > > > One can only be perfect if one is a robot? God must be a robot. > > A programmed robot would do exactly what the robot was programmed to do. > On the other hand, the people that God created had free will. God has free > will. Neither God or people are robots. If God is omniscient then he can see the future. If he can see the future then he can see what he will do tomorrow. If he can see what he will do tomorrow then his actions are inevitable and he doesn't have free will. If he _does_ have free will then the actions he would foresee himself doing would not be inevitable. Thus, your god cannot have both free will and omniscience. It's a contradiction. Martin Quote
Guest Ralph Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1105072336150001@66-52-22-31.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <1178945498.278671.320020@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 12, 6:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from >> > non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural >> > materials and create life from that natural materials. >> >> Yes, the difference is that creationism requires one to believe in a >> supernatural boogey man in the sky whereas evolution requires one to >> only accept the very real evidence from genetics, paleantology, >> anatomy and zoology. >> >> > It's much easier >> > for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear >> > to >> > believe. >> >> Actually, no, it isn't. >> >> Martin (not the one from the UK) > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Martin, > As I have stated in other posts, we have fossil evidence that is discussed > in this book: > > "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow > A thorough examination of all the pre-human fossils. > > Another interesting book: > > "In Six Days" Editor: J.F. Aston > 50 scientists explain their reasons for believing the Biblical version of > creation. And as we have told you, see why this book is a fraud. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 2:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <5alq3oF2oseo...@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" > > <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > "Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote in message > >news:f247a9$n2t$01$2@news.t-online.com... > > > Jason wrote: > > >> In article <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4p...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > > >> <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >>> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:51:48 -0700, J...@nospam.com > > >>> (Jason) let us all know that: > > > >>>> In article <5akd8hF2oeg1...@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" > > >>>> <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > >>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > >>>>>news:Jason-1105071713050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >>>>>> God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect > > >>>>>> or > > >>>>>> imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised > > >> his free > > >>>>>> will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God > > >> does not > > >>>>>> want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". He > > >>>>>> wants > > >>>>>> angels and people to love and worship God because they want to love > > >>>>>> and > > >>>>>> worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine of free > > >>>>>> will. Books have been written about that subject. > > > >>>>>> . > > >>>>>>> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created > > >>>>>>> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can > > >>>>>>> be > > >>>>>>> no free will. It's not possible. > > >>>>>> I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. > > >>>>> Then you have just demonstrated why there is no God. > > >>>>> You aren't listening to what you are being told - if there was an > > >>>>> omniscient, all powerful God who knows exactly what will happen in the > > >>>>> future and is in control of what will happen from the moment of > > >>>>> creation- there can be no free will, as God will already know what you > > >>>>> will do > > >> before > > >>>>> you were even created- IOW, no free will. > > >>>>> You are quite clear on the fact that there is free will, therefore, > > >> by your > > >>>>> own statement, there is no God. > > >>>> That debate could go on forever. The bottom line is that we have free > > >>>> will. > > >>> Ok. Then either god is not omniscient or god didn't create > > >>> everything. Which will it be? > > > >> God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he wants to > > >> do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you reply, please > > >> don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that the > > >> last time. > > > > The saying is "omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent". Which just is not > > > possible. At least one of the three is a contradiction. Make your pick. > > > I don't think he really understands the implications in order to pick one. > > He just doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand why free will and an > > omnipotent, omniscient creator God are contradictory. > > I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. That is a contradiction. See my previous post: God would not even have free will if he were omniscient because he would be able to foresee his own actions perfectly. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <f25fp6$33o$03$1@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > >>> There is a big difference between believing that God created life from > >>> non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. > >> (snip) > >> > >> You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god > >> that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable > >> properties that must produce life after the right amount of > >> cause and effect has modified its matter. > >> > >> Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for it is for > > me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. > > > > If I saw a new car setting in a junk yard, I would not assume or believe > > that the car must have come about from an explosion that happened at that > > junk yard. It would be easier for me to believe that car was designed and > > created. > > You mistake "evolution" for "chance". > Look up the "perfect 747" one of these days and why it is not applicable. > > Abiogenesis "might" actually have an aspect of "chance". But even chance > can have results, if given enough time. If you play the same lottery > numbers long enough you almost certainly will win. You just have to > play them for 50.000 years or so (that's a wild guess. Oh, well. I just > did the maths. Was a wee bit wrong. On average you'd have to play for > 1442307 years and a few months....Wups. One and a half million years....). > Still, be are talking billions of years for abiogenesis and evolution > combined. And you only need the starting point. > Evolution has nothing to do with chance. Far from it. Someone recently posted an article written by a scientist about the complexity of a living cell. I was shocked when I read the article because I had forgotten how complex a cell really is. I do not believe a living cell could come about by chance. A living cell is more complex in design than a new computer or a new Lexus. That's the reason I believe there was a creator. For the sake of discussion, let's say that a living cell could come about by chance or evolve from non-life. If that were true, a scientist could develop the conditions necessary to make it happen. Scientists have tried to do that and they have failed. On the other hand, there are lots of people like yourself that believe that it just happened by chance. Unless a scientist can design an experiment that causes life to evolve from non-life, I will continue to believe in a creator God. jason > > > > > > When Einstein was asked about this subject, he pulled out his pocket watch > > and showed it to the reporter that asked the question. He stated, "This > > watch had a designer and life had a designer." I agree with Einstein > > Jason > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Since you seem to hate snipping, I leave that in and only add that I > don't think Einstein said anything like that or meant a "creator" in > sense of a god. Einstein did not say what he meant when he used the term designer. > > > Tokay Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <esgc43h06ki5neitn538nm7s4t7bcq8f6k@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 16:11:58 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >In article <joidnaPoJuZeq9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > >> > There is a big difference between believing that God created life from > >> > non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. > >> (snip) > >> > >> You just don't have enough imagination to hypothesize a god > >> that created the universe with the built-in and unstoppable > >> properties that must produce life after the right amount of > >> cause and effect has modified its matter. > >> > >> Others have no problem hypothesizing such a powerful god. > > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >It's far easier for me to believe that God created life than for it is for > >me to believe that life naturally evolved from non-life. > > Easier isn't necessarily correct. > > > >When Einstein > > Cite please. Nightline had a special related to a debate between two oupspoken Christians and two outspoken atheists. One of the Christians used the quote from Einstein related to the watch. > > > Don > --- > aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > > "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 <snip> > >There is a big difference between believing that God created life from > >non-life and believing that life naturally evolved from non-life. > > So, why can't your God use evolution? Who are you to tell God how to do > things? I am not telling God how to do things. The first chapters of the Bible explain how God done things. He did not use evolution to create humans, plants and animals. Evolution kicked in after the creation of life was finished. > >Let's say that I used a helecopter to place a brand new car deep in a > >jungle that a tribe of people lived in that had never before seen a > >vehicle. > > > >Perhaps some of those people may believe the car came about as a result of > >natural forces. Perhaps some of the other people may believe the car was > >designed and created. > > > >Do you see my point? > > Yes, you, like many zealots, worship your own ignorance and are so taken > with yourselves that you cannot imagine that the earth really isn't that > important in the universe. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 On May 13, 3:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f246qa$97k$0...@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.b...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <1178943780.445609.142...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 12, 5:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > >>> Yes. However, I will not have to suffer for my sins since Jesus has > > >>> already suffered for my sins. Only Non-Christians will have to suffer for > > >>> their sins. That's why I wish that everyone was a Christian. > > >> I don't recall ever asking Jesus to suffer on my behalf. If I am > > >> truly doing something wrong by lusting after Angelina Jolie (and > > >> frankly I don't see how it's even anybody's business) then I will > > >> accept the punishment rather than expecting somebody else to suffer on > > >> my behalf. That's what being moral is all about. > > > > That's your choice. I would prefer to not suffer for my sins. You do have > > > options. > > > That's childish at best. You are fully responsible for what you do. To > > pass the blame and/or punishment to somebody else is ... ehm, no other > > word for it... EVIL. > > I disagree. Jesus shed his blood for me thousands of years ago. The Bible > makes it clear that he suffered and died in my place so that I could be > delivered from my sins. It's childish to expect somebody else to pay for your sins in your place. If you are really doing something wrong then you should simply stop doing it. There is no incentive for Christians to _not_ sin if they believe that Christ has already suffered in their place. Martin > I believe that it's an intellegent and wise thing > to do to since that is what God and Jesus wants me to do. As per the 2005 > Time Almanac, 76.7 per cent of Americans are Christians so it's my guess > most of them agree with me. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <ragc43t77bh612omlhsvbtv2oc0s04mdld@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 12 May 2007 15:39:42 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-1205071539420001@66-52-22-50.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <GrqdnZkQdNyMsdvbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > In article <hJSdnSrqr5mbn9vbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish > >> > <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Jason wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. He is also a dictator but > >> >>> that is not a problem for Christians. God is a loving God and would be a > >> >>> wonderful dictator. > >> >> That is the fear talking. > >> >> > >> >> This loving hypothetical god also is said to have nearly > >> >> sterilized the planet, because it had a temper tantrum when > >> >> its creation did not perform up to its expectations, yet, > >> >> had been created exactly as it wished it to be and had been > >> >> foreseen to be. How could it have been otherwise if this > >> >> hypothetical loving god was really omniscient and > >> >> omnipotent? That is one crazy and sadistic hypothetical > >> >> demon, you got there. > >> >> > >> >> You better keep complimenting it and kissing its ass, or it > >> >> might do you and infinite punishment. > >> >> > >> >>> I would not trust a dictator that was human but would > >> >>> trust God since God is perfect. > >> >> (snip) > >> >> > >> >> Kiss kiss (don't hurt me). > >> > > >> > The other alternative is going to hell and being forced to worship Satan. > >> > I believe my choice is better. > >> > >> Once you understand that the whole story is mythology, other > >> choices open up. > >> > >> In the mean time, you will probably sleep better if you keep > >> sucking up to your imaginary, hypothetical god. > >> > >> I understand. I once feared the same demon. > > > >On judgement day, you will really be shocked. > > > There is no evidence that there will be a judgement day. There is no > evidence that any gods exist. There is no evidence that the god you > worship is the right god. There is no evidence that you won't be the one > going to hell for worshipping the wrong god. Not true--the WRITTEN evidence is in the Bible. In many courts in America, written evidence such as contracts are deemed very important. Josh McDowell wrote a book entitled, "Evidence That Demands A Verdict". I actually saw him preach in a church service. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 13, 2007 Posted May 13, 2007 In article <l9hc4397k7375tbe40ikt1vfsrm4b9admr@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Sat, 12 May 2007 11:49:10 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >In article <5alq3oF2oseo3U1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" > ><spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > >> "Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in message > >> news:f247a9$n2t$01$2@news.t-online.com... > >> > Jason wrote: > >> >> In article <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4prgc@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > >> >> <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:51:48 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> >>> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> >>> > >> >>>> In article <5akd8hF2oeg1dU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" > >> >>>> <spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >>>>> news:Jason-1105071713050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >>>>>> God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect > >> >>>>>> or > >> >>>>>> imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised > >> >> his free > >> >>>>>> will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God > >> >> does not > >> >>>>>> want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". He > >> >>>>>> wants > >> >>>>>> angels and people to love and worship God because they want to love > >> >>>>>> and > >> >>>>>> worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine of free > >> >>>>>> will. Books have been written about that subject. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> . > >> >>>>>>> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created > >> >>>>>>> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can > >> >>>>>>> be > >> >>>>>>> no free will. It's not possible. > >> >>>>>> I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. > >> >>>>> Then you have just demonstrated why there is no God. > >> >>>>> You aren't listening to what you are being told - if there was an > >> >>>>> omniscient, all powerful God who knows exactly what will happen in the > >> >>>>> future and is in control of what will happen from the moment of > >> >>>>> creation- there can be no free will, as God will already know what you > >> >>>>> will do > >> >> before > >> >>>>> you were even created- IOW, no free will. > >> >>>>> You are quite clear on the fact that there is free will, therefore, > >> >> by your > >> >>>>> own statement, there is no God. > >> >>>> That debate could go on forever. The bottom line is that we have free > >> >>>> will. > >> >>> Ok. Then either god is not omniscient or god didn't create > >> >>> everything. Which will it be? > >> >> > >> >> God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he wants to > >> >> do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you reply, please > >> >> don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that the > >> >> last time. > >> > > >> > The saying is "omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent". Which just is not > >> > possible. At least one of the three is a contradiction. Make your pick. > >> > > >> I don't think he really understands the implications in order to pick one. > >> He just doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand why free will and an > >> omnipotent, omniscient creator God are contradictory. > > > >I consider God to be omniscient and omnipotent. > > And did god create everything? If so, then there's no free > will. God gave us free will when he created mankind. Even angels have free will. > > > Don > --- > aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. > > "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" > Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.