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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
the burden of proof lies on the one.... making the bold claim, in this case my conversation partner.
I don't think the story is ridiculous and, in my opinion, it does not fail on several levels and the video could not show any such failure.
it's not a myth, I'm convinced.
I didn't claim Adam was "dumb" - just that he would have no concept of death or dying. To threaten someone by telling them that they will "die" when they have no concept of the idea seems entirely strange to me. You are likely taking for granted that we understand what it means "to die." It's hard not to with how fundamental an idea to our lives it is. But Adam may have spent quite a while in Eden, and nothing around him would perish or cease to last. Death would be an entirely foreign concept - one that he would not easily understand without experience, I would think. Like seeing plants or animals around him die.
I don't think the story is nonsense.
But as I stated, even the idea that Adam DOESN'T reach heaven is entirely problematic. And this is because the alternative, "Hell," would be so entirely foreign to Adam that it would be almost meaningless. He has no concept of "evil," remember - therefore torture, pain, suffering, etc. are all unknown to him at the moment God might be trying to relate "bad consequences" to the idea of death, and ultimately going to a "bad place." He wouldn't understand that he might "do evil" and therefore might go to this "bad place" - and he wouldn't understand what torment lay in wait for him. All of it foreign, and I would argue can't really be understood without first hand experience. Pain? What is pain unless you have FELT it? It isn't anything at all. For example - try explaining pain to a person who can't feel it at all. Try to make them understand the excruciating nature of a broken bone, or a bad burn. You can't. It's exactly like trying to tell a blind man the attributes of the color "blue."
if anything was unclear he could have asked God.
Even if he didn't understand a lot, still he knew that he should not eat it. (as I said)
The point still stands, however, that, as quoted, God merely told Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate of the fruit. No further explanation of what that meant or how exactly that translated into consequences they would face if they did. I very much believe this to be because the people who wrote The Bible didn't think very thoroughly through their story at all... and merely took everything they already knew for granted - applying it all to Adam and Eve as if they were not the naive people that they seemed to intend to write into the story. This is just an example of poor critical thinking and writing skills at work, in other words, and nothing more.
actually you were making the bold claim - that miracles puportedly don't exist. But you couldn't back it up by anything.
You didn't back it up by anything. It's presumption, I think.
but also this point still stands: nothing prevented Adam from going ask if anything was not clear...
I see mistakes. Maybe God doesn't, but I do.
That rephrase is no change. It is still a bad claim. All that it says is that, If everything regarding a god that Thomas assumes to be true is actually true, then everything that Thomas assumes regarding a god is actually true. That is just a trivial tautology.
You did. You claimed that the Genesis story was real, that Jesus turned water into wine.
I asked you to present a logical argument in syllogistic form. You failed to do so. Is that something that is beyond your ability?
Why? What will I get out of it?
God is stone it does not talk.
You cannot disprove Nessie so logically he created the universe.
I'm not saying that anything you cannot disprove must have created something, of course.
Thank your for replying, RE.
I left out "miracle making" at "miracle making faeries".
You're wrong. It is a bad claim and a tautology. Now what? Is that all?
to the best of my knowlegde, a tautology is a statement like "A is imply A!"