Justice could never be served as it will always be attributable to a gene. Murderers would get off by claiming to have a killing gene and rapists would say they have a rapest gene. By your logic there is no immorality and no sin we are all the product of our genes.
1. As can be seen by the above paragraph that I wrote previously. I am not offering a substitute, I and demonstrating the effects that will ensue if sin was attributable to genes, as you suggested, I was not replacing anything with a similitude, I was giving a conclusion. I have to admit, I do not think you will understand this either. It seem like you cannot adequately reason these things out. You have insinuated that my perceived results to your argument is a straw man, a substitute argument. I was right, you do not understand what a straw man is, do you.
2. That would be a miscarriage of justice as they could not be held accountable for there actions. By your logic we wouldn't need any prisons
The effects are irrelevant as i've stated. Were debating the truth of these things, not whether the outcome is something that is desirable. What matters to me is whats true. You're bringing up an irrelevant red herring. Also it was a strawman: you mistrepresented my position and attacked the misrepresentation. Like I said, i never said that we were just a byproduct of our genes.
Tell me, what is the connection between your rebuttal above and my original post, as shown below. Until you clarify it I cannot answer you.
Its going to be difficult to explain something so obvious, but earlier you were saying stuff like this: 'Murderers would get off by claiming to have a killing gene and rapists would say they have a rapest gene. By your logic there is no immorality and no sin we are all the product of our genes." So in this hypothetical you're saying that the gene determines the actions of the rapist and thus the rapist lacks free will and so there is no immorality because there was no decision.
In my response i said "it doesn't matter if the lack of free will presents a problem or not--what maters is what's true.". It doesn't get any more obvious.
1. If my belief is irrelevant do you accept that your beliefs are irrelevant as well?
2. Really, I will stand, hand on heart, and say that everything I am and everything that I possess is the result of my choices, for which I know that I will have to stand accountable for..
3. My digestion. What do you think is wrong with my digestion.
1. Not necesserily although many of them will be irrelevant. I haven't stated many beliefs. I've mostly been questioning yours.
#2. I don't care if you swear before God. If free will was an illusion then logically you would think you make your own choices, but you wouldn't actually. You can't actually know, based on argument or reason or knowledge, that your free will isn't an illusion.
#3. Nothing but you've missed the point. Go over it again.
1. Eve was taken from the rib of Adam. She shared Adams genes. There would be no effects from interbreeding because there would be no interbreeding. The genes are the same.
2. In our world today, and with our knowledge, you might be right. In Adam's world where they fell from perfection to imperfection, then your wrong. Diversity would result as soon as we increased in numbers and started our own families away from our parent to allow our genes to be influenced. No, doubt that is why God said; For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother,and be joined to his wife; and they shall becomeone flesh.
[3] Why would you think that I would want to deny the God of atheists, "science". I am a great believer in science because it is its origins come from my Father in Heaven, who has been drip feeding us with discoveries.
#1: LOL. You know men and women HAVe to have different genetics in order to make them male and female right? you know about chromosomes don't you? The genetics determines whether you are a man or a woman. Also, two clones breeding together would cause inbreeding problems.
#2: Well I'm most likely correct. What you're saying is nevermind evolution and science altogher. God created an elaborate hoax to trick scientists that we evolved from apes and that there were always at least a few thousand humans. Furthermore there is no boundary as to when pre homo sapien apes became humans. So what should we go with? Your claims about adam and eve, or the entire scientific community?
#3: Lol God of atheists. You're being childish with that remark. Also nice assertion but there's no proof that God is giving us technology.
You say that because your lifestyle prevents you from receiving His witness. I am just a Child of God who strives to live a Christ like life. God has told everyone what He thinks. He has even compiled a book called the bible where you can read what He thinks.
If you were living a christ like life you wouldn't be on internet writing up pages upon pages of text; you would be out in third world countries saving lives, doing charity work and giving every penny, dime, and nickel you had to others. Then you would be like Jesus.
What on earth are you talking about? I have no clue, other then you are getting exited at the potential of proving me wrong, which is a little unsettling, You obviously see something that is clearly not there. However, please clarify it as I look forward to refuting it and making you look inept.
From you:
"God is Alpha and Omega, knowing the beginning from the end, what happens in between He has no control over, so He cannot know who will get Leukemia or who will lose their life in a car accident. All of those things are the result of the choices we make."
From me:
"You just said that all of those things are the result of choices we make and before you were just talking about leukemia. its becomming tedious to remind you about stuff you just said."
So you were talking about leukemia, and then you said "all of those things are the result of choices we make". Therefore you're saying Leukemia is the result of choices we make. I was saying that was complete garbage earlier. Try and jog your memory a little harder. I think you recognize your failure here but you're just going to pretend that you weren't completely rebuted.
Also I'm not excited, what are you talking about? You have some bizarre fantasies about my emotions. That's weird. Anyways, don't try and make yourself look inept in the process.
As I said, your excitement has made you incoherent leaving me clueless as to what your point is.
Clueless seems to be your primary state in this discussion. See above again.
God knows all that there is to know. If it cannot be known then he cannot know it. Simple deductive reasoning.
Again, how much is that? There are an infinite number of things that can be known; like knowing the entire set of numbers. Does God have infinite knowledge then?
1. A big difference from what exactly?
2. How come that the entire Plan of Salvation makes perfect sense to me, who tried for two decades to disprove it in every way possible, yet you cannot make any sense of it. I cannot make any sense without it.
3. Lets put your misrepresentation right. I did not say that God is beaming knowledge/concepts into your brain. Probably from his ftp server. That is your taunt, thought up all by yourself. You are so proud of it that you keep repeating it.
4.You do not have a special connection because you cannot cut it, make the grade, and your comprehension skill are spurious, at best.
5. Thats funny, nobody has ever said that to me, if they ever do it will be an atheist who says it on the grounds that I am a Christian, however, your insults are getting more and more notably personal.
#1. Read what I was responding to and its obvious.
#2. That's just not an argument. Your incredulity simply isn't an argument. If you can't explain it then I would submit you don't understand it.
#3. So what, God isn't beaming knowledge into your head? So he's not putting concepts in your head then? Can you be more consistent. Either he's transferring concepts to you or he isn't. The ftp server is to convey to you how ridiculous it is that god is transferring concepts into your mind.
#4. Here's more of that hypocrisy about ad hominem.
#5. You can't cry about insults if you make them yourself. You've made many to numerous people. Are you familiar with hypocrisy?
3. Yes, God knew that there would be trials and tribulations however, it was our decision and design and it was the only way for us to obtain a body of flesh and blood. It is the Plan of Salvation that was accepted and sanctioned by two thirds of the host of Heaven, including you. You cannot be tried and tested without without opposition so, it is the fault of every single one of us, we are all culpable for that terrorists actions. These statements are what shows your ignorance in Christianity, to the point that it is becoming tiresome to continually have to repeat myself in among you puerile insults.
It wasn't my decision. Where's your evidence that this is true? Is Heaven now a democracy? And it wasn't the only way--i can think of several other possibilities where every person has an equal playing field. You have no clue about Christianity yourself. Your ignorance is astonishing. Nowehre in the bible does it say that human souls game together and decided on our existence. Why don't you try reading an actual bible ok?Have you even read the bible?
1. I think that you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand what a Straw Man actually means.
2. Yes you did. You inferred it when you said "if a terrorist sets off a bomb, he isn't responsible because it was the expansion of hot gases that caused the damage, not the terrorist directly." In order for the bomb to be responsible it would have to be fully aware of what it is doing and be able to alter the laws of the universe to stop it from happening if it were it's choice. This is obviously not possible so the terrorist remains the culprit.
3. The state of my health is none of your business. You are being personal, again, in your ad hominem
#1. And there's more hypocrisy. You contradict yourself as you cry about it in point #3. You're incredibly inconsistent and illogical. Now i actually don't care about your use of ad hominem. It doesn't bother me. However its ridiculous to complain about ad homnem, and then, in the same point, you make an ad hominem--this was the thing you just admonishe dme for. You've done this several times now and its quite amusing.
#2. LOL, such weak logic. I was explaining your logic for starters. I was saying "it would be like if" .... Regardless though, nothing in there requires intelligent gas. Responsibility doens't necesserily require intelligence. The meteor that killed the dinosaurs was responsible for the destruction of the dinosaurs but it had no intelligence. Responsibility can refer to moral responsibility or it can refer to the cause that lead to the effect or it could refer to both. You're not very good with nuance are you?
#3 An ad hominem is personal by definition. The fact is thought that it seemed like you were being dishonest with your vast number of fallacies, particularly your large number of strawmen. Also refer to point #1 once again where you contradict yourself.
