• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists - A Question...

nPeace

Veteran Member
The dilemma is how Christians say God is not pleased with how humans turned out. If God wanted to create perfect beings then God would have created perfect humans. He didn't, so he either mad a mistake or he created humans with deliberate flaws.
You are not listening to me. When you do, we can continue.
God created perfect beings.
I quoted the text in Deuteronomy, which shows where the flaws originated, and it was not from God, and I explained what perfection is.

If I make a vase of glass, and it is the way I want it to be, it is perfect to me. It does not need to be steel, or kryptonite to be perfect.
Perfection is relative,
There is only one perfect being.
Adam and Eve were perfect beings, in that they were the way God wanted them to be - Made in his image - that is, with his qualities, and the potential to grow in them, and having the ability to make free willed decisions.
There was no flaw. God declared his creative works, "Very Good".

God did not want Adam and Eve to be robots that could only make one decision.

If you just want to say what you want to say, regardless, this is not a conversation.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
I see there is progress, and regress... and the still waters. :grinning:
If you only see progress, then I think you should check your bias level.

I'm talking about progress over time. Compare science now with that of the middle ages, or even 100 years ago. Something can fluctuate yet still trend upwards. Look at the Stock Market.

Look, I'm running out of patience with this. The problem I'm having with getting you to understand me comes from the way you choose to communicate. You say something, it's not clear to me but I think I understand what you are saying, so I respond based on that. You then say that I've got it wrong and say something equally vague, and round it goes. It's not hard to feel that you are being deliberately obstructive.

I will continue, but only if you will answer the following questions clearly and unambiguously.

- What is your attitude to science, in general, not picking particular examples. Is it accurate or inaccurate? Is it an effective way to determine truth?

- Again in general, is modern medical science better, worse or the same as that of, say, 100 years ago?

- What are you trying to establish with all this?

Over to you.
 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
Scenario :
You are in the waiting room of a medical facility.
There are about 30 people in the room.
A man enters the main entrance. Stands in the doorway. Looks around the room at everyone, and then leaves.
You see people looking at others, and reacting as if they are having mixed reactions... and some get up and start exiting the room.
You and the few remaining are looking at each other.
You feel it. You are assuming they feel it too.
Feel what? You no longer feel like when you came to the doctor.
Whatever you were experiencing - runny nose / headache / stomach cramps / ___ was gone.
Not wanting to look like an idiot sitting there by yourself (everyone else has left), you get up... to leave.​

Wait a minute.
Maybe you need to see the doctor, to be sure you are fine.
You could say, "Doc. I have... had... this awful pain a few moments ago..."

Atheists... If this happened to you, would this convince you that the spiritual side of life is a reality - that miracles and the supernatural are real?
Or would you attribute it to a 'natural' phenomenon - perhaps associated with some scientific experiment or mind altering technology?

My first reaction to your post was I viewed the mental exercise as an attempt by you to get others to believe in the supernatural. I was somewhat offended by the exercise attempt. Not because I don't believe in occurrences I can't explain, but because of perceived intent. My question would be "why" - if that was your intent.

Discernment, the magistrate side of judgment - I ask why. I like to say my fail safe side is atheism, but I'm not an atheist. Truth matters to me and that's why atheism is my fail safe. As a Christian, truth matters to me. Knowing truth from error - It's a difficult line to travel - between atheism and theism - I'm a theist - my safe zone
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Thus you missed the point of the illustration, and have gone off the rails... it seems.
Remember you said you don't want us to be talking past each other.
Ignoring the connection between the illustration, and the answers given, to your question, 'What God's excuse?" would be doing just that... talking past each other.

Note. You did not ask how my answer related to the illustration. It appears you totally ignored them, and went for another argument... what you think God could or should have done.
I might have misunderstood you or missed some, if so please ask the questions again.

So, mankind not existing does not matter... Oh wait! You have another way God could have allowed mankind to exist, and not suffer!
Let's hear it. :)
Isn't heaven a place with no evil and suffering?

If this is possible here, I don't really see a huge issue for God doing it here on Earth or is what you are implying that heaven is impossible or what? :p
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
You are not listening to me. When you do, we can continue.
God created perfect beings.
I quoted the text in Deuteronomy, which shows where the flaws originated, and it was not from God, and I explained what perfection is.
Perfect beings don’t get duped. They don’t fail. Adam snd Eve were duped thus not perfect.

If I make a vase of glass, and it is the way I want it to be, it is perfect to me. It does not need to be steel, or kryptonite to be perfect.
Perfection is relative,
What you think is perfect is irrelevant since you are asserting a God is absolutely perfect and doesn’t make mistakes.

There is only one perfect being.
Your version of God, right? Of course you could be mistaken in this belief.

If you are correct then everything your God created was deliberate and exactly as he intended.

Adam and Eve were perfect beings, in that they were the way God wanted them to be - Made in his image - that is, with his qualities, and the potential to grow in them, and having the ability to make free willed decisions.
There was no flaw. God declared his creative works, "Very Good".
They just lacked the mental tools to resist temptation by an agent that God created and allowed to do.

God did not want Adam and Eve to be robots that could only make one decision.
They didn’t have to be robots, they just needed to be able to resist temptation. They weren’t prepared, and got fooled. God allowed it. Or did your God get fooled too?

If you just want to say what you want to say, regardless, this is not a conversation.
False, this is what conversations look like: people with independent minds expressing ideas. And you don’t think your comment here is ironic? Do you want me to be a robot and a mindless agent for your God, just repeating dogma?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I'm talking about progress over time. Compare science now with that of the middle ages, or even 100 years ago. Something can fluctuate yet still trend upwards. Look at the Stock Market.

Look, I'm running out of patience with this. The problem I'm having with getting you to understand me comes from the way you choose to communicate. You say something, it's not clear to me but I think I understand what you are saying, so I respond based on that. You then say that I've got it wrong and say something equally vague, and round it goes. It's not hard to feel that you are being deliberately obstructive.

I will continue, but only if you will answer the following questions clearly and unambiguously.

- What is your attitude to science, in general, not picking particular examples. Is it accurate or inaccurate? Is it an effective way to determine truth?

- Again in general, is modern medical science better, worse or the same as that of, say, 100 years ago?

- What are you trying to establish with all this?

Over to you.
You want to know, so I'll answer.
What is your attitude to science, in general?
There has been many accomplishments and advancements in science - some for good... some for bad.
Science has its weaknesses, and limitations.

These include insufficient evidence, and the human element (error, hubris, bias, personal interest, etc.)

There are many example of how "scientific findings" (note quotation marks) are seen by scientists themselves.

Two camps of theorists are bickering in public — with one [camp] saying the others’ ideas don’t even qualify as science.
"Some scientists accept that inflation is untestable but refuse to abandon it. They have proposed that, instead, science must change by discarding one of its defining properties: empirical testability. This notion has triggered a roller coaster of discussions about the nature of science and its possible redefinition, promoting the idea of some kind of non-empirical science".
Moreover, they claim that the inflation theory is untestable because of its flexible nature. "Individually and collectively, t
hese features make inflation so flexible that no experiment can ever disprove it".

They concluded by characterizing it as an idea outside of empirical science altogether. The myriad ways inflation could have played out would lead to so many possible outcomes that no astronomical observation can ever rule the general idea out, they say — and moreover, some advocates for inflation know it. This would go against a basic, popular framing of science suggested by philosopher Karl Popper, in which a theory becomes scientific when it takes the risk of making predictions that nature could then uphold or disprove.
*******************

It would be good to read the entire article.

It's interesting what these scientists are saying... which means that these weaknesses and limitations in science are real. They do exist. ...and scientists courageously point them out.

I understand that scientist have their job to do, and so they must proceed, rather than sit and twiddle their thumbs, despite problems with their theories, but that has nothing to do with me.
What scientist believe is up to them.
I don't have to believe as they do. Many, many scientists don't... and I am no scientist.

So when it comes to science, I consider whether there is solid evidence, or just "strong" ideas.
You know the inflation theory idea, is considered by many scientists, as an actual reality, right.

Not all scientists though.
THE LATEST ASTROPHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS, COMBINED WITH THEORETICAL PROBLEMS, CAST DOUBT ON THE LONG-CHERISHED INFLATIONARY THEORY OF THE EARLY COSMOS AND SUGGEST WE NEED NEW IDEAS
Now consider that other "theories" are built on these ideas.
It would be like building a house with a pack od cards, in a closed room.
Now open the windows. :D

Since I myself, and billions of people are interested in finding truth, from a source that can give us reliable answers, I do not limit myself to this limited field of study... Not saying that science does not provide some answers. It does.
That's why I understand certain things, like the eye - how it works, amd how we see, amd why I know there is an intelligent designer that created these things. :)

However, science is not the only source to truth, nor is it the most reliable.
Many years have past, and science cannot give us answers to... "Why was the universe so incredibly uniform just one second after the big bang?" "Why is the earth so finely tuned for life?" "Why do the parts of the body function so harmoniously?" etc.
Yet, they tell us why the sky is blue, right.

I have found reliable answers to the afore mentioned questions... and more, of course, from another source... one atheists don't like.

Forgive me for getting carried away.
By the way, did Jose Fly put you up to this?
Looks identical to his questions and MO. ;)

In general, is modern medical science better, worse or the same as that of, say, 100 years ago?
I'm telling you man, that question is as broad as a truck, and you are asking me to paint my closet with it.
I'm not Michael Jackson you know. ;)

I'll try.
Ancient medicine and practice has been around centuries before modern medicine, and is still as effective, now, as in the past... more effective and more safe than modern medicines.... most of which makes one more sick than before, as they add to complications.
Should I read some of the info on a few for you, or is your head out the sand? :D

The Chinese, and other Asians have utilized herbs known to be extremely effective in a number of serious ailments in their modern medicines.
Some drugs utilize herbs... with added "poisons"

Oh, and do you know that the incompetence of many modern practitioners also add to the problem of modern medicine not being as effective as in the past.
People even say that people today do not care as much as in the past.

Now why this question is not a question that can receive a straightforward answer, is because modern medicine is also ancient medicine, practiced by people who do not believe in treating their patients with drugs that are more dangerous than drinking a drop of poison every month... or two weeks.

Naturopaths for example practice medical science. It's modern, but not Orthodox, and it utilizes ancient medicine and practice.
So you see, why I cannot say one is better than the other... Or did I. ;)

However, I can tell you I prefer the medical science that is against the medical science that washes people in synthetic drugs... and blood transfusions. :)

In certain cases though, I might seek out the other side.
For example, in a case where I may need to remove harmful "bodies" from the body. ...but this is for two reasons. 1) I don't know of all the practices of medical practitioners who use other form of medicine than drugs, and 2) some of their practices are against my religion.
I don't have that faith... in those practices, I mean.

I'm studying if I left out anything.
I think that's it. :)
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
My first reaction to your post was I viewed the mental exercise as an attempt by you to get others to believe in the supernatural. I was somewhat offended by the exercise attempt. Not because I don't believe in occurrences I can't explain, but because of perceived intent. My question would be "why" - if that was your intent.

Discernment, the magistrate side of judgment - I ask why. I like to say my fail safe side is atheism, but I'm not an atheist. Truth matters to me and that's why atheism is my fail safe. As a Christian, truth matters to me. Knowing truth from error - It's a difficult line to travel - between atheism and theism - I'm a theist - my safe zone
Welcome.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I might have misunderstood you or missed some, if so please ask the questions again.


Isn't heaven a place with no evil and suffering?
The reason no one suffers in a physical way, is because those in heaven are not physical.
However, there is was emotional disturbance in heaven. - Revelation 12:10

There was also evil in heaven, before it was removed.
Revelation 12:1-12

That too took time, but it happened.
This is the same situation for the earth. It takes time, but it will happen. Revelation 20:1-3; Romans 16:20

I
If this is possible here, I don't really see a huge issue for God doing it here on Earth or is what you are implying that heaven is impossible or what? :p
So your solution is, 'Don't make humans.'
Nimos, the task at hand is to allow mankind to exist, and not suffer.
In other words, humans must exist, and not suffer.

You know what a human being is right? ;)
Right. Flesh. Material. They don't live in heaven. They can't. No oxygen. That's certain death. You want them alive.

Besides, we see that angels can be evil. They too have free will. 2 Peter 2:4; Genesis 6:4; Ephesians 6:12

Too difficult for yah?
Your first attempt failed... miserably. :p
Let's hear the next.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
Perfect beings don’t get duped. They don’t fail. Adam snd Eve were duped thus not perfect.
I can see how much of a Bible scholar you are.
Adam was not deceived. . . (1 Timothy 2:14)
I don't know what you consider a perfect being, so we aren't communicating very well.


What you think is perfect is irrelevant since you are asserting a God is absolutely perfect and doesn’t make mistakes.
It's not what I think. It's what is.
Unless of course, you aren't referring to the Bible. In that case...

By the way, I meant to say, There is only one perfect being... in the absolute sense.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I might have misunderstood you or missed some, if so please ask the questions again.
Sorry for not being clear. Here, I was making mention to the issue we are focussing on, using an illustration.

Issue: Why God allows suffering.
Illustration: Why the parent allows the child to have the operation, that will result in pain.

The thing for you to do, is not be distracted by the illustration, and focus on that, but see how it applies to the issue.

Hope you understand.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I can see how much of a Bible scholar you are.
Adam was not deceived. . . (1 Timothy 2:14)
I suggest that text is attempting to deceive Bible believers. I'm reading the story and assessing what it says, and in no way can the Fall from the Garden be blamed on humans incapable of good judgment. They were not created with the capacity to understand being deceived, just as God made them.

I don't know what you consider a perfect being, so we aren't communicating very well.
I am going based on my three decades of debating Christians who interpret Genesis literally. They have a claim about Adam and Eve being created as perfect beings, and I understand that to mean what it implies, that they are immortal and don't sin. In my discussions it seems believers haven't thought through the myth very well because I insist that they might have been immortal but not wise or knowledgable.



It's not what I think. It's what is.
Unless of course, you aren't referring to the Bible. In that case...
This is a non-answer. I put together a coherent thought about what I think perfection is in regards to A&E, and you can't match that? So you might refer to God as perfect but can't articulate what you think that means?

By the way, I meant to say, There is only one perfect being... in the absolute sense.
Assuming it exists. And assuming your belief above is perfect as well, and not flawed.

I mean, no Gods are known to exist, so how could you know the characteristics of something not known to exist?

I would not say the creator God of Genesis is perfect given the creation falls apart pretty soon after it is made. A perfect God creates something the way it wants, and stays that way.
 
Last edited:

Nimos

Well-Known Member
The reason no one suffers in a physical way, is because those in heaven are not physical.
However, there is was emotional disturbance in heaven. - Revelation 12:10

There was also evil in heaven, before it was removed.
Revelation 12:1-12

That too took time, but it happened.
This is the same situation for the earth. It takes time, but it will happen. Revelation 20:1-3; Romans 16:20
And it would be impossible for God to make physical things like humans and animals unable to suffer, that is simply not part of his powers?

So your solution is, 'Don't make humans.'
Nimos, the task at hand is to allow mankind to exist, and not suffer.
In other words, humans must exist, and not suffer.

You know what a human being is right? ;)
Right. Flesh. Material. They don't live in heaven. They can't. No oxygen. That's certain death. You want them alive.

Besides, we see that angels can be evil. They too have free will. 2 Peter 2:4; Genesis 6:4; Ephesians 6:12

Too difficult for yah?
Your first attempt failed... miserably. :p
Let's hear the next.
I always find it kind of funny with the limitations that religious people assign to God whenever needed. I honestly think that atheists show more respect for what the scriptures tell us about God than any religious person does that I have ever spoken to. :D

So following from the question above, where in the scriptures does it say that God can't do this? The one thing I agree with that is beyond God is when it comes to logical impossibilities, such as making a square circle.

Making physical beings immune to suffering is impossible, but raising the dead.... no problemo :)
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
You want to know, so I'll answer.

And you have!

I'll start by thanking you for taking the time for such along and detailed response, which was exactly what I wanted.

Obviously I could address your various examples in detail (you know I'm going to disagree with some of them) but I've already done that and we'd just go round again. I'm not quoting much of what you say but rest assured I have read and thought about all of it.

Forgive me for getting carried away.
By the way, did Jose Fly put you up to this?
Looks identical to his questions and MO. ;)

No, it's all my own work!

In general, is modern medical science better, worse or the same as that of, say, 100 years ago?
I'm telling you man, that question is as broad as a truck, and you are asking me to paint my closet with it.
I'm not Michael Jackson you know. ;)

Nice mixed metaphor, by the way. You won't get far trying to use a truck as a paint brush! I assume you meant a "broad brush". And Michael Jackson was neither a truck driver nor a painter. ;)

I'm studying if I left out anything.
I think that's it. :)

Just the third question:

What are you trying to establish with all this?

Maybe that's a bit unfair, and you don't have to answer, but I wondered anyway. Typically theists that doubt science follow through by presenting their religious beliefs as an alternative. That's an alternative to science, not an alternative to atheism. Maybe you've done so elsewhere. But that was where I was going when I asked you for alternatives.

Thanks again, anyway. I won't be continuing with the discussion on science and medicine as I think we've both said all we have to say.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
Making physical beings immune to suffering is impossible, but raising the dead.... no problemo :)

Just because I pick nits ... it would actually be difficult to make creatures that could live in this world without the ability to feel pain. Not the physical act of creation, but they wouldn't survive long as pain is a primary survival mechanism.

I don't think that invalidates your point, because there could be a different mechanism to allow us to avoid physical damage.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Just because I pick nits ... it would actually be difficult to make creatures that could live in this world without the ability to feel pain. Not the physical act of creation, but they wouldn't survive long as pain is a primary survival mechanism.

I don't think that invalidates your point, because there could be a different mechanism to allow us to avoid physical damage.
Agree. :)

The point is simply that it's so often that when you talk with religious people it goes something like this...

"God created everything, there is nothing he can't do, he only does good things etc. etc." and the moment you ask a critical question, it goes like this...

"Well God doesn't do that... God can't do... God and then something with free will... God didn't do it, humans are to blame... something with sin" :)

Either God can do everything which is within logical reason or the statement is simply wrong. And if these people stick to him being able to do everything, then raising moral issues is definitely in its place as I see it.

And as you say, pain is crucial for survival, but then again we are not God with the ability to create/design a Universe from nothing.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
Agree. :)

The point is simply that it's so often that when you talk with religious people it goes something like this...

"God created everything, there is nothing he can't do, he only does good things etc. etc." and the moment you ask a critical question, it goes like this...

"Well God doesn't do that... God can't do... God and then something with free will... God didn't do it, humans are to blame... something with sin" :)

Either God can do everything which is within logical reason or the statement is simply wrong. And if these people stick to him being able to do everything, then raising moral issues is definitely in its place as I see it.

And as you say, pain is crucial for survival, but then again we are not God with the ability to create/design a Universe from nothing.

Yes.

What it comes down to is that there really is no valid explanation for the "problem of evil" IF you insist on a tri-omni God. It all goes away of course if you weaken one of the omnis. nPeace has a unique (to me) explanation, that God deliberately refrains from using his ability to see the future in the case of our free will. It's a neat idea, because it (sort of) allows us to be responsible for the evil in the world without taking away any of God's power. I say "sort of" because I don't quite buy it, but that's a longer discussion.

Another stab at it that kind of works is the "best of all possible universes" defense. That claims that this world contains the minimum amount of suffering involved in achieving some higher purpose. When asked about the purpose, it's usually not understandable to us or we are presumptuous to question God.

Still, so many idle hours filled with discussing it! It can't be all bad.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
What it comes down to is that there really is no valid explanation for the "problem of evil" IF you insist on a tri-omni God.
Even if God weren't tri-omni, he still runs into problems why animals would need to suffer? They kill each other in some of the most brutal ways, sometimes taking a very long time.

God might have a beef with humans for whatever reason, but most humans at least would look at animals as being rather neutral or innocent beings. Again, if God designed it to be like this, doesn't that raise some questions regarding God's "personality"? And to some this might even be considered a much harder question to answer.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I suggest that text is attempting to deceive Bible believers. I'm reading the story and assessing what it says, and in no way can the Fall from the Garden be blamed on humans incapable of good judgment. They were not created with the capacity to understand being deceived, just as God made them.
Well nowhere in Genesis does it say Adam was deceived, so dismissing the Greek text that agrees with the Hebrew text is parallel to not using either.
In that case, you are using your own story... one you made up, in order to argue against.

I am going based on my three decades of debating Christians who interpret Genesis literally. They have a claim about Adam and Eve being created as perfect beings, and I understand that to mean what it implies, that they are immortal and don't sin. In my discussions it seems believers haven't thought through the myth very well because I insist that they might have been immortal but not wise or knowledgable.
Oh. You understand it to mean something they never said.
Oh dear me. Why not just make up anything and say this is what the Bible says, and what Christians believe.
Why would anyone in their right mind say perfection means cannot sin, and then say that perfect people sinned. :eek: Oh dear me.

This is a non-answer. I put together a coherent thought about what I think perfection is in regards to A&E, and you can't match that? So you might refer to God as perfect but can't articulate what you think that means?
Perfection basically means complete.
Perfection in the ABSOLUTE sense, means complete to the fullest, or ultimate degree.
Perfection in the RELATIVE sense, means complete, relative to or in relation to something else.
So perfection can have varying levels or degrees.
For example, something or someone can be perfect to another, based on the standard or level set.
  • This doll is perfect in a relative sense:- It's exactly what I wanted. There's nothing I would change about it. It meets my standard or lthe level of being very good - perfect.
  • Adam and Eve were created perfect in a relative sense, as they met the standard or level set by God.
  • Job was perfect in a relative sense, as a sinful man because he reached the standard, or level set by God, for a sinful man.
Is that simple enough for you?

Assuming it exists. And assuming your belief above is perfect as well, and not flawed.

I mean, no Gods are known to exist, so how could you know the characteristics of something not known to exist?

I would not say the creator God of Genesis is perfect given the creation falls apart pretty soon after it is made. A perfect God creates something the way it wants, and stays that way.
Perhaps you'll get there, I don't know, but right now, I see a great many flaws in the way you are seeing this / thinking, which won't do a great deal for your understanding.

For someone to think that a creator who made man with the ability to make his own choice, then gave man the opportunity to exercise that freedom to choose, with the knowledge the choice could go either way - good or bad, somehow would be surprised and not know that thing could go different to what the creator wanted, I think, either that person just does not want to be reasonable, or is just by nature, not reasonable. Or... they just are confused because of all the years they spent being fed false ideas.
I'll go with the latter, in this case.

A parent may want their child to do the right thing, but they know the choice lies with the child.
They would be sad at the outcome, if the child makes the wrong choice, because they love the child, and wanted the best for the child.
If the child's choice causes damage to the family, the parent will work to correct the damage.
In some cases, the damage done may be irreversible.

With God, the damage done is reversible. The action God took, and the things set in place, will not fail, but will correct all damage caused, and restore all things as good as new. Isaiah 35; Isaiah 65:17-25; Revelation 21:1-4

God has a purpose for the human family. God started it, and will see it through. God knows that nothing will stop that purpose from being fulfilled, even a temporary unpleasant period, which God allowed, on the basis that the things set in motion, will accomplish good for all, to his good pleasure. Romans 8:18-25; Ephesians 1:3-10.

The only way to get every person to choose to do what you would like them to do, is to replace their brain with a computer chip, programed to follow only the instructions you list.
Otherwise, you will have to not want anything for them, and just let them do whatever they want.
I have a feeling the latter is what atheist would recommend.
Nevernmind they won't last too long.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
And it would be impossible for God to make physical things like humans and animals unable to suffer, that is simply not part of his powers?
You mean without nerves.
Would that not require disconnecting your brain?
A brainless human? Nope. That wouldn't work.
Besides, how would you feel the tender touch of your sweetheart, or the softness of a baby? How would you know you sat on the hot iron? :tearsofjoy:

Nimos, you do come up with some really interesting things.

I always find it kind of funny with the limitations that religious people assign to God whenever needed. I honestly think that atheists show more respect for what the scriptures tell us about God than any religious person does that I have ever spoken to. :D
Tell me more about your dream. How so? :p

So following from the question above, where in the scriptures does it say that God can't do this? The one thing I agree with that is beyond God is when it comes to logical impossibilities, such as making a square circle.

Making physical beings immune to suffering is impossible, but raising the dead.... no problemo :)
Um. Um. You are the one with all the spunk about an incompetent God Nimos. What happened?
Do tell... how do you make an "immune to pain" human?

By the way, I must tell you... you're doing a lousy job at being God. :(:eek:
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
And you have!

I'll start by thanking you for taking the time for such along and detailed response, which was exactly what I wanted.

Obviously I could address your various examples in detail (you know I'm going to disagree with some of them) but I've already done that and we'd just go round again. I'm not quoting much of what you say but rest assured I have read and thought about all of it.
Thank you.


No, it's all my own work!
Interesting.


Nice mixed metaphor, by the way. You won't get far trying to use a truck as a paint brush! I assume you meant a "broad brush". And Michael Jackson was neither a truck driver nor a painter. ;)
True, but he had a large closet. :D


Just the third question:

What are you trying to establish with all this?

Maybe that's a bit unfair, and you don't have to answer, but I wondered anyway. Typically theists that doubt science follow through by presenting their religious beliefs as an alternative. That's an alternative to science, not an alternative to atheism. Maybe you've done so elsewhere. But that was where I was going when I asked you for alternatives.
Yeah. I don't have to answer. Thanks. ;)

Thanks again, anyway. I won't be continuing with the discussion on science and medicine as I think we've both said all we have to say.
Thank you. :)

By the way, you think just like Jose Fly.
That third question is one he also asked.
If I didn't know better, I'd think that you were his double from another dimension. :tongueout:
 
Top