Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[waitasec]

Wishful thinking on your part.

no. i have proof.

9-11 was very upsetting.
and your line of thinking gives license so such atrocities.

Well gee...again....

Without belief in God....how will you settle the event...for you that is?
Apparently, never.

And in so doing your inappropriate assumption of how religious people think...
will keep you from stepping up your theological discussions.

You do see you're on a downhill run with your soapbox under your arm?

Oregon couple convicted in son's faith-healing death - latimes.com

Trial Begins in Girl's Faith-Healing Death - CBS News

dangerous thinking...

Point taken...as it affirms what I said before.
You're focusing on the few that go to the extreme.

As if you would do the same....if you took on faith.

there is no line drawn with this dangerous way of thinking...as rationality disappears when one faces desperation...while the answer is in front of them the whole time, in this case medicine....in other cases, controlling others who do not adhere to their religious beliefs...live and let live...no faith required.

but alas natural selection will take it's course by doing away with stupidity.

As well as the wishful thinking there is no God.

there may well be one, but that isn't what we are talking about, now is it?
how does one know god prefers the circumcised penis?
how does one know god prefers sacrifices?
how does one know god prefers belief?

unfunded confidence brings out the worst in people

Caught up in the dogma I see....check my banner.

your cowardice ducking technique is noted...

how does one know god prefers the circumcised penis?
how does one know god prefers sacrifices?
how does one know god prefers belief?

unfunded confidence brings out the worst in people

Redundancy does not credit your poor questions...or attitude toward the religious.

then answer them?

if you refuse to then perhaps it's because your answers are poor....

:biglaugh:
what a joke...



nothing beats cheap entertainment...yes yes yes and it's at your expense.

Your empty retorts no longer justify a return.
Maybe you've noticed similar criticism from other participants?
Your routine becomes less 'entertaining' on each occasion.

Eventually...no one will bother.

:spit:
how does one know god prefers the circumcised penis?
how does one know god prefers sacrifices?
how does one know god prefers belief?

You seem to like the questions so much.....be brave....go ahead....

you seem to be ducking....a cowardly move.

Show how brave you are....
You insist on answers to your questions....
a poor attempt to lead the discussion....

Go ahead...lead....
Show us how brave you are.

if it acts like a duck...

ask me a question and i'll answer it...as i'm not afraid to.

Start with your own questions.
You want the lead.
It's now yours....go for it.

how does one know god prefers the circumcised penis?
the bible
how does one know god prefers sacrifices?
the bible
how does one know god prefers belief?
the bible

the bible is nothing but a book full of unsupported claims

so now, how does one know all these things to be something your god prefers?

Try answering this one yourself.

so now, how does one know all these things to be something your god prefers?
wishful thinking....

your turn...or are you a coward?

Wishful thinking on your part.

not at all... i have proof.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So as i said before, God can force someone to believe something? Are you happy to agree with me on that point, not freely but he can force someone to believe something. You disputed it at first but I think we're on the same page now?

Yup, we agree. But I never disputed that. I have been very clear from the beginning. You can go back to my previous posts to confirm this. But yes, we agree now.

You are still confusing what the perception of reality really is. Someone's perception of reality occurs before their thoughts have anything to do with it, their perception is what they see, hear, touch, taste and smell. Their senses produce their perception of reality. His perception did not consist of the label "prostitute" flashing above her with an arrow pointing down, his perception doesn't even identify what it is looking at or smelling.

It seems to me as if you are the one that is confused. Someones "perception" of reality is exactly that, their perception. Even in the microsoft works definition of perception, it is "perception: the process of using senses to aquire information about the surrounding enviorment or situation" Now in the analogy that I gave, this is EXACTLY what happened to the man who thought the woman was a prostitute. We are talking about perception of reality, and preconceived notion, right? But think about it, your perception of reality COMES from your preconceived notion every single time. You cant have one without the other. Now, in the analogy, the guy had a preconceived notion of what a prostitue looks like, and what she would be doing. He had that notion before he even left the house. He saw a woman that fit his preconcieved notion, so his perception of reality, how he perceived reality was wrong. It doesnt matter whether or not the woman was actually a prostitute, it was his interpretation of reality, what he perceived her to be. Whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant when discussing his perceptions, because we perceive falsehoods all the time. Now my point is, in regards to this delusion, God could have used a method very similiar to the sting operation, and it therefore could be done in an honest way. God neither changed their perception of reality, nor did he give them a preconceived notion. Even in the context of the scripture, these were things that these men already had.

Hence why when God sent the delusion, he didn't do anything like this, hence why this analogy is not apt. What God did was cause the people to sense something that was not really there in order to keep them believing a lie. He intended to force people, by altering their perception of reality, to maintain belief in something that is untrue. Hence why he lied to them, his intention was to deceive.

A persons perception of reality could either be true or false. So, lets use another analogy. Lets say, I have been a life long big foot fanatic. I go on "big foot seeking" adventures and all of that stuff. My friends, who dont believe in big foot, decides to plant some big foot prints in the mud out in the forest. So they decide to take me on a hike. We go out on the hike and we come across these huge footprints. I immediately say "Look, BIG FOOT PRINTS, I KNEW HE EXISTED", and I am very ecstatic. And my friends say "How do you know those are big foot prints, someone could have easily planeted them there", and I say "No, those are big foot prints, look at the size of those things". And i take pictures of it and all of that good stuff. Now what is going on here?? There is no definition of delusion that states a person has to lie to a person in order for the act of "deluding" to come to past. Now yes, someone can be deluded by being lied to, but this isn't exclusive to just being lied to. A delusion is defined, according to wikipedia as a "false belief" in a nutshell. God could have created circumstances at which those people believed a falsehood. But that was because of their preconceived notions, because different people who were in the same circumstance as those people, but without the preconceived notions, could have perceived things differently.

The entirety of the zygote is non-intelligent, you said so yourself. That's why this fallacy does not apply. The zygote which is a non-intelligent life form grows into an intelligent life form, it is true of other animals too, even those that are produced from eggs and do not have the nutritious input by the mother. Sorry to say it but your notion of non-intelligence being incapable of producing intelligence is flat out wrong.

But since I believe that God is the author of all life, a zygote does not come from non-intelligent, but rather, it comes from intelligent. It is on your view that intelligence comes from non-intelligence, not mines. So on your view, if you rewind time and go all the way back to the first assembled cell, you will find out that it is highly unlikely that life could have arose from nonlife, let alone intelligence from nonintelligence. But that is another debate.

I call **********. The expansion of the singularity produced the universe all of the matter and energy was contained within the singularity and as the singularity expanded, everything it contained spread throughout what became the universe.

THERE WAS NO SPACE BEFORE THE SINGULARITY. If there was no space, where would you put all of the matter and energy?? If matter existed, it would have to occupy space, but since there was no space, there was NO MATTER. This is why the Standard Model of the Big Bang represented the beginning of space, time, and matter.

Space-time did not exist prior to it's expansion, without time, it is meaningless to look for a time prior to it's expansion as there really was no such thing. The singularity did not necessarily exist for an "infinite" amount of time. Who know's why it expanded, that's why I said the only real answer is I don't know because it is all speculative as no data exists to support any hypothesis as to why it all happened or what caused it.

First of all, you said above that matter and energy existed within the singularity. But there was no SPACE before the singularity. So you cant logically say that on one hand, energy existed within the singularity, which would entail space, and then say that "space-time" did not exist prior to the expansion. You cant have it both ways. Second, if space-time didnt exist at some point, but "began" to exist, there had to be a preexisting cause as to why it began to exist. This is inescapable.

There was matter and space contained within the singularity, the singularity consisted of the entire universe it was all compressed into the singularity.

Once again, there was no space in the singularity. The singularity is a point at which all space is shrunk to zero. There was no space. Matter can only be occupied in space. If there is no space, there is no matter.

I don't refuse to believe in God though, I just don't believe in him, no refusal took place.

Ok, you win this one lol.

But you said man had a sinful nature and that is why with free will man can sin while God can't. So therefore, man was created with a sinful nature or else they could never sin. According to Christian tradition man did sin. Either way, you didn't really respond to my question, sin and death did not exist and could not exist until God created something, so when God created something, he created the possibility and subsequently the system of sin and death.

Once again, free will. Free will is the capability to do right, or wrong. If it is possible for you to do wrong, you have a sinful nature. God could not have given us free will without giving us sinful nature. As a result of making these wrong descisions, we made ourselves subject to death, which is the punishment for doing wrong.

But you said that humans with free will are capable of sin while God with free will is not, you attributed that to humans having a sinful nature while God's is sinless. This means that humans could not sin while they had a sinless nature, so humans must have always had a sinful nature. Which means God created humans with a sinful nature. Why did he do that?

I also said that a beings free will has to be consistent with their nature. There are some things I cant do with my free will. I cant freely fly to the moon with my arms. There are limits. Gods free will does not allow him to contradict his own holy nature.

I am not, here I am talking about Biblical flaws, logical flaws which has nothing to do with moral standards.

There are no logical flaws in regards to morality. An action is only right and wrong according to the person whose own moral standards allows for the action to be right or wrong. This is what we have been discussing, what is right and what is wrong. If you think it is illogical or some type of injustice is taking place, this is because you are basing it based on your own moral standard.

No their still subjective, they can be right and subjective but by their very nature all personal morals and opinions and thoughts are subjective. That's what subjective means. Even if someone adopts a religious opinion or moral standard they still adopt their subjective interpretation of it.

Ok, so based on this subjective interpretation, if someone kills your whole family because of their religious interpretation, they are right according to their interpretation, and not objectively wrong by any means.

 

[Thief]

no. i have proof.
not at all... i have proof.

And a run of dialog is proof?

Maybe you should go meditate and get your thoughts together.

Maybe you'll notice the severe digression of this thread.

 

[waitasec]

And a run of dialog is proof?

Maybe you should go meditate and get your thoughts together.

Maybe you'll notice the severe digression of this thread.

so you're still continuing to :ignore: the question huh...?

funny how your typical retort includes the digression clause when you're at a loss...

lame.

 

[Thief]

so you're still continuing to :ignore: the question huh...?

funny how your typical retort includes the digression clause when you're at a loss...

lame.

After 600+ responses I'm sure your 'question' got answered.
Maybe you really should go back and proof read your 'question'.

 

[filthy tugboat]

It seems to me as if you are the one that is confused. Someones "perception" of reality is exactly that, their perception. Even in the microsoft works definition of perception, it is "perception: the process of using senses to aquire information about the surrounding enviorment or situation"

Read that very carefully, "using senses to acquire information about the environment or situation" Where does this say anything about preconceived notions? This is exactly what I was saying, perception of reality concerns only the information our senses provide, what we see, hear, touch, smell and taste. Our perception of reality does not consist of labels that come from our preconceived notions about reality. When we perceive reality, it occurs before our brain deciphers our perception and adds labels like "girl" "boy" "car" "building". Our perception of reality has no identification process, our brain does that afterwards and that is a part of our preconceived notions about reality. They are two different things and you are trying to confuse them together.

Now in the analogy that I gave, this is EXACTLY what happened to the man who thought the woman was a prostitute. We are talking about perception of reality, and preconceived notion, right? But think about it, your perception of reality COMES from your preconceived notion every single time. You cant have one without the other.

Incorrect, we can perceive things that we have no preconceived notions about. Babies do it all the time.

A persons perception of reality could either be true or false. So, lets use another analogy. Lets say, I have been a life long big foot fanatic. I go on "big foot seeking" adventures and all of that stuff. My friends, who dont believe in big foot, decides to plant some big foot prints in the mud out in the forest. So they decide to take me on a hike. We go out on the hike and we come across these huge footprints. I immediately say "Look, BIG FOOT PRINTS, I KNEW HE EXISTED", and I am very ecstatic. And my friends say "How do you know those are big foot prints, someone could have easily planeted them there", and I say "No, those are big foot prints, look at the size of those things". And i take pictures of it and all of that good stuff. Now what is going on here?? There is no definition of delusion that states a person has to lie to a person in order for the act of "deluding" to come to past. Now yes, someone can be deluded by being lied to, but this isn't exclusive to just being lied to. A delusion is defined, according to wikipedia as a "false belief" in a nutshell.

Wikipedia definition is not to be taken over dictionary definitions. Altered perception of reality is a preferred definition and it means sensing things that do not exist. Hearing voices in your head, seeing people and things that aren't really there or happening.

God could have created circumstances at which those people believed a falsehood. But that was because of their preconceived notions, because different people who were in the same circumstance as those people, but without the preconceived notions, could have perceived things differently.

Screw the whole focus on the delusion thing, God's plan was to deceive these people. His intention was to be deceptive and knowingly keep them believing an untruth. Do we agree on this part? Ignore all the crap about what a delusion really is and just focus on the point of the message. God with full knowledge of his actions put effort into keeping people believing something he knew to be false. This is lying and if it doesn't qualify as lying, it's as good as, it's the same point. God can knowingly convey an untruth. God has intentionally put effort into convincing people of something that was not true. This is one reason why he is untrustworthy.

But since I believe that God is the author of all life, a zygote does not come from non-intelligent, but rather, it comes from intelligent.

Circular argument 101. There is no credible example of intelligence coming from non-intelligence without God contributing to the process. Therefore God, being an intelligent entity, must have been involved in the process of intelligence existing on Earth. What about the birth process where non-intelligent organisms grow into intelligent organisms? Without God it wouldn't happen. Therefore, there is no credible example of intelligence coming from non-intelligence.....

And round and round we go!

It is on your view that intelligence comes from non-intelligence, not mines.

It should be on your view, it is witnessed daily. Thousands of times a day.

So on your view, if you rewind time and go all the way back to the first assembled cell, you will find out that it is highly unlikely that life could have arose from nonlife, let alone intelligence from nonintelligence. But that is another debate.

Indeed it is, not one I am particularly fond of having.

THERE WAS NO SPACE BEFORE THE SINGULARITY. If there was no space, where would you put all of the matter and energy??

Before the singularity? What are you talking about, the expansion of the singularity marks the beginning of time. How could there be a before the singularity?

If matter existed, it would have to occupy space, but since there was no space, there was NO MATTER. This is why the Standard Model of the Big Bang represented the beginning of space, time, and matter.

"The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing" (ref)

The wording here, I don't particularly like with something like the singularity, it is useless using words like "prior to" "began inside". What is the current scientific thought is that matter and space existed as the singularity, when, where, how, why have no answers. I don't know what existed first, whether it all came into existence at the same time, whether it came into existence at all, what triggered the expansion. I don't know and neither does anyone else.

Once again, free will. Free will is the capability to do right, or wrong.

I thought it was the ability to choose free from constraint.

If it is possible for you to do wrong, you have a sinful nature.

Humans, no?

God could not have given us free will without giving us sinful nature.

Why not? Apparently such a thing can exist -God has free will and does not have a sinful nature- so why must humans have a sinful nature?

As a result of making these wrong descisions, we made ourselves subject to death, which is the punishment for doing wrong.

But God created us with a sinful nature, even if that was the only way we could be created, he is the one that created us with a sinful nature, he is the one that brought death and sin into existence by creating sinful nature.

I also said that a beings free will has to be consistent with their nature. There are some things I cant do with my free will. I cant freely fly to the moon with my arms. There are limits. Gods free will does not allow him to contradict his own holy nature.

Yet we have a sinful nature? Why? Why did God create us with a sinful nature when there is clearly at least one other option. There could be others? Maybe there is another possibility that is neither sinful nor exactly like God's. Why did we get created with a sinful nature?

There are no logical flaws in regards to morality.

I didn't say there was, I said that I was using logic to demonstrate Biblical flaws and not using my own moral standard like you keep suggesting.

An action is only right and wrong according to the person whose own moral standards allows for the action to be right or wrong. This is what we have been discussing, what is right and what is wrong.

No, I was talking about justice and righteousness, I have posted relevant Biblical standards that conflict with the notion of vicarious redemption, you have promptly ignored them and suggested I'm arguing from my own moral compass. The Bible has it's own standard for what is just and unjust, righteous and unrighteous. According to that standard, I propose that vicarious redemption is both unjust and unrighteous. I will happily re-post the relevant Bible quotes if you missed them or cannot recall but please drop this nonsense about me using my own moral compass.

Ok, so based on this subjective interpretation, if someone kills your whole family because of their religious interpretation, they are right according to their interpretation, and not objectively wrong by any means.

By what means would they be objectively wrong? Legally, they would probably be in the wrong so I suppose that is one form of objective wrong...

Here's a good example to compare this to though, according to the Bible, Moses and the Israelites did just this to millions of Canaanites, went into homes and killed men women and children, sick and old, babies and children even the livestock in a few places. Were they objectively wrong? Of course not.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Read that very carefully, "using senses to acquire information about the environment or situation" Where does this say anything about preconceived notions?

In the analogy, the man had a preconceived notion on what a prostitute would look like, what she would be doing, how she would be dressed. Based on that preconceived notion, his perception of reality was altered, because someone fitting that description was in fact NOT a prostitute.

This is exactly what I was saying, perception of reality concerns only the information our senses provide, what we see, hear, touch, smell and taste. Our perception of reality does not consist of labels that come from our preconceived notions about reality. When we perceive reality, it occurs before our brain deciphers our perception and adds labels like "girl" "boy" "car" "building". Our perception of reality has no identification process, our brain does that afterwards and that is a part of our preconceived notions about reality. They are two different things and you are trying to confuse them together.

Right, as you said. What we can "see". If you were riding in the car with the man in the analogy, you and him may see the same woman walking the street. His perception of her as he is looking at her could mean that he thinks that she is a prostitute. Your perception of her could simply mean that she is a regular woman walking the street. Perception, in this case, started with the eyes, and the brain perceived what the eyes saw based on an individuals preconceived notion.

Incorrect, we can perceive things that we have no preconceived notions about. Babies do it all the time.

Im not to sure babies perceive things. They are not able to understand or comprehend, so I wouldnt say that they perceive things.

Wikipedia definition is not to be taken over dictionary definitions. Altered perception of reality is a preferred definition and it means sensing things that do not exist. Hearing voices in your head, seeing people and things that aren't really there or happening.

Well, I can use the microsoft works definition. It says the same thing.

Screw the whole focus on the delusion thing, God's plan was to deceive these people. His intention was to be deceptive and knowingly keep them believing an untruth. Do we agree on this part? Ignore all the crap about what a delusion really is and just focus on the point of the message. God with full knowledge of his actions put effort into keeping people believing something he knew to be false. This is lying and if it doesn't qualify as lying, it's as good as, it's the same point. God can knowingly convey an untruth. God has intentionally put effort into convincing people of something that was not true. This is one reason why he is untrustworthy.

I strongly disagree. God used the same means as the folks did in the analogy, and that is using someones preconceived notion about reality and using it against them. There is nothing deceptive about it.

Circular argument 101. There is no credible example of intelligence coming from non-intelligence without God contributing to the process. Therefore God, being an intelligent entity, must have been involved in the process of intelligence existing on Earth. What about the birth process where non-intelligent organisms grow into intelligent organisms? Without God it wouldn't happen. Therefore, there is no credible example of intelligence coming from non-intelligence.....

Either I am reading this completely wrong, or I am agreeing with you lol. My point was, intelligence cannot come from nonintelligence. If that is what you meant above, we definately agree.

It should be on your view, it is witnessed daily. Thousands of times a day.

We are talking about the ultimate source. You came from your parents, right? Are your parents intelligent or not? If they are, then you came from intelligent parents, and therefore, intelligents begets intelligence. The parts that made you up doesn't have to be intelligent, and this kind of thinking goes right back to the fallacy of composition that I think you are committing If you trace everyones parents back to their parents, and their parents to their parents ALL THE WAY back to the beginning, there will be no more parents, therefore, no more intelligence. So, that would be intelligence coming from nonintelligence (on your view). It is inescapable.

Before the singularity? What are you talking about, the expansion of the singularity marks the beginning of time. How could there be a before the singularity?

I apologize, I meant before the expansion of the singularity. But on another note, there was no temporal cause before the singularity, but a causual cause.

"The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing" (ref)

The wording here, I don't particularly like with something like the singularity, it is useless using words like "prior to" "began inside". What is the current scientific thought is that matter and space existed as the singularity, when, where, how, why have no answers. I don't know what existed first, whether it all came into existence at the same time, whether it came into existence at all, what triggered the expansion. I don't know and neither does anyone else.

Ok, but nonetheless, the universe began to exist some 13.7 billion years ago. I am trying to figure out how and why, if the singularity was infinite, did the universe only begin 13.7 billion years ago. That may seem like a lot of time, but that is only a minute compared to INFINITY. Second, not all models have a singularity point and the finitude of the universe is not dependent upon this point.

I thought it was the ability to choose free from constraint.

Same thing. To be able to freely choose right from wrong is to be free from constraint.

Humans, no?

Huh?

But God created us with a sinful nature, even if that was the only way we could be created, he is the one that created us with a sinful nature, he is the one that brought death and sin into existence by creating sinful nature.

But death is not something that cant be overcome though. Death doesn't have control over Gods plans. Death is nothing but a consequence of our actions. Nothing more, nothing less. It can be overcome and God is not limited by it.

Yet we have a sinful nature? Why? Why did God create us with a sinful nature when there is clearly at least one other option. There could be others? Maybe there is another possibility that is neither sinful nor exactly like God's. Why did we get created with a sinful nature?

There is only two options, either you have free will, or you dont lol. There are no other options. If you have free will, you are free do to what you want, and bear consequences of those actions. If you dont have free will, you are no more than a puppet, a robot, "progammed" to do what you are told. God doesnt want you to love him by force, he wants you to love him by freely choosing to do so.

I didn't say there was, I said that I was using logic to demonstrate Biblical flaws and not using my own moral standard like you keep suggesting.

Suit yourself.

No, I was talking about justice and righteousness, I have posted relevant Biblical standards that conflict with the notion of vicarious redemption, you have promptly ignored them and suggested I'm arguing from my own moral compass. The Bible has it's own standard for what is just and unjust, righteous and unrighteous. According to that standard, I propose that vicarious redemption is both unjust and unrighteous. I will happily re-post the relevant Bible quotes if you missed them or cannot recall but please drop this nonsense about me using my own moral compass.

You just dont like, believe, or accept the sacrifice atonement. This has nothing to do with logic. All you did was express discontent with the way God does his business. This is subjective from your view. You made statements like "that isn't justice" or, "that isn't fair". But that is according to YOU. This is using your own preconceived notion about what it means to be fair and just and using it as a standard to judge other peoples actions. This is exactly what you are doing.

By what means would they be objectively wrong? Legally, they would probably be in the wrong so I suppose that is one form of objective wrong...

They wouldnt be objectively wrong without God, because without God, there is no ultimate source of goodness. So there actions would be right according to them, but wrong according to you. It all goes back to subjectiveness.

Here's a good example to compare this to though, according to the Bible, Moses and the Israelites did just this to millions of Canaanites, went into homes and killed men women and children, sick and old, babies and children even the livestock in a few places. Were they objectively wrong? Of course not.

No, because God had morally sufficient reasons for giving such a command. So this action was objectively right.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

so you're still continuing to :ignore: the question huh...?

funny how your typical retort includes the digression clause when you're at a loss...

lame.

Have you been threatened with punishment after you die, for disagreeing, yet?
Expect that, too.

 

[filthy tugboat]

I strongly disagree. God used the same means as the folks did in the analogy, and that is using someones preconceived notion about reality and using it against them.

The Bible doesn't say that, it says he sent them a delusion, did the police send a delusion to the man?

There is nothing deceptive about it.

How not? The very definition of deception is conveying what you know or think to be an untruth. God knowingly and intentionally put effort into conveying an untruth to a group of people. He wanted them to continue believing what he knew to be a lie. That fits the definition of deception. It's beyond me how you could think that God did not act deceptively. Just to clarify, "Knowingly and intentionally causing people to continue believing what he knew to be false, he conveyed false information intentionally to keep people believing a lie."

Either I am reading this completely wrong, or I am agreeing with you lol. My point was, intelligence cannot come from nonintelligence. If that is what you meant above, we definately agree.

I used that to demonstrate circular logic, it's a logical fallacy and it nullifies an argument. You assumed your conclusion in your premise being that intelligence cannot come about without God. I demonstrated intelligence coming from non-intelligence and you just said, "well yeah, because God causes intelligence in babies and things." Circular logic is fallacious, your conclusion is wrong or it was achieved with a wrong argument. Hell it could still be right but the argument you used is ridiculous and bad and wrong. Basic logic.

We are talking about the ultimate source. You came from your parents, right? Are your parents intelligent or not? If they are, then you came from intelligent parents, and therefore, intelligents begets intelligence.

Oh so we're going to ignore the actual non-intelligent thing we come from. The zygote? You're gonna skip that part? Just like when humans poo, the excrement is non-intelligent, sperm and egg cells are non-intelligent, the zygote is non-intelligent. Yet eventually intelligence comes from that non-intelligence, it's a natural process that occurs thousands, if not millions of times a day in a variety of animals, some of which do so outside of the body.

The parts that made you up doesn't have to be intelligent, and this kind of thinking goes right back to the fallacy of composition that I think you are committing

A zygote doesn't "make me up" It is in it's entirety an non-intelligent thing that does not constitute an intelligent thing. Eventually as the zygote changes and grows it becomes intelligent. Hence why the fallacy you propose does not apply. The zygote is not non-intelligent because it is made up of non-intelligent things, it is non-intelligent in it's entirety. You really need to do a bit more research on the fallacies you propose because this is obviously not a fallacy composition.

If you trace everyones parents back to their parents, and their parents to their parents ALL THE WAY back to the beginning, there will be no more parents, therefore, no more intelligence. So, that would be intelligence coming from nonintelligence (on your view). It is inescapable.

indeed, it does appear that intelligence came from non-intelligence.

I apologize, I meant before the expansion of the singularity. But on another note, there was no temporal cause before the singularity, but a causual cause.

What is a causal cause? This seems to be gibberish.

Ok, but nonetheless, the universe began to exist some 13.7 billion years ago. I am trying to figure out how and why, if the singularity was infinite, did the universe only begin 13.7 billion years ago. That may seem like a lot of time, but that is only a minute compared to INFINITY.

Technically a 13.7 billion years or any amount of time for that matter is not comparable to infinity. What do you mean by the singularity was infinite? It was infinite in density but as previously mentioned, time didn't exist or certainly not in the same sense we know it until the expansion.

Second, not all models have a singularity point and the finitude of the universe is not dependent upon this point.

The most popular and well established theory is the Big bang theory and that does consist of a singularity.

But death is not something that cant be overcome though. Death doesn't have control over Gods plans. Death is nothing but a consequence of our actions. Nothing more, nothing less. It can be overcome and God is not limited by it.

That wasn't the point, the point was that God brought death and sin into the universe by creating creatures with a sinful nature. Something i think you've already agreed with me on despite your earlier objections.

There is only two options, either you have free will, or you dont lol. There are no other options. If you have free will, you are free do to what you want, and bear consequences of those actions. If you dont have free will, you are no more than a puppet, a robot, "progammed" to do what you are told. God doesnt want you to love him by force, he wants you to love him by freely choosing to do so.

You stated yourself that humans have a sinful nature and God has a holy nature. You brought the concept of natures into this now deal with their consequences. God created humans with the capability and the probability to sin whilst free will was available to those with a holy nature and there was no possibility for sin or apparently death. Why? Why did God not create humans with a holy nature? Why did God create humans with a sinful nature when there was an alternative that consists of free will also?

You just dont like, believe, or accept the sacrifice atonement.

I wouldn't say "just" but you are right, I do not like, believe or accept the notion of vicarious redemption.

This has nothing to do with logic. All you did was express discontent with the way God does his business. This is subjective from your view. You made statements like "that isn't justice" or, "that isn't fair". But that is according to YOU. This is using your own preconceived notion about what it means to be fair and just and using it as a standard to judge other peoples actions. This is exactly what you are doing.

It's almost like you ignored the Biblical references? I even said I would happily repost them for you in the ABOVE QUOTED MESSAGE! If you don't read what I write then what's the point in responding to me? You may as well debate yourself. This is ridiculous. Read the damn quoted message and if you failed to read the Biblical quotes earlier in the debate make a request to me to REPOST THEM! I don't understand why you are going on about this crap, I made it bloody well clear that there were other motives and then i offered to show you the objective basis I am presenting and you flat out ignore it? Do you want me to debate you or not? From what i can tell you just want to debate yourself and ignore what I write. This is stupid, please. For the love of God please. Read what is being debated and don't just pretend to know what I am thinking or doing and why. This is the prime example of willful ignorance. /end rant!

They wouldnt be objectively wrong without God, because without God, there is no ultimate source of goodness. So there actions would be right according to them, but wrong according to you. It all goes back to subjectiveness.

Indeed, it appears morality is subjective. I disagree that with God it would be meaningfully objective though, as I have presented. You also missed one of my posts one page back, I posted two and you only responded to one, that had the Euthyphro dilemma part on it.

No, because God had morally sufficient reasons for giving such a command. So this action was objectively right.

So the example you tried to give of something being objectively wrong with the existence of God being assumed happens to have been condoned by God? This is laughable. I think you're demonstrating my point for me, do i need to say anything else in response to this? You are defeating your own argument, and it's great, thanks for the help, I mean I could have easily done it myself but this just takes a load off.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The Bible doesn't say that, it says he sent them a delusion, did the police send a delusion to the man?

You are assuming that a delusion takes place only when someone is being lied to or deliberately being deceived by their perception of reality. I tried to point out why this isn't the case. But ok, we disagree.

How not? The very definition of deception is conveying what you know or think to be an untruth. God knowingly and intentionally put effort into conveying an untruth to a group of people. He wanted them to continue believing what he knew to be a lie. That fits the definition of deception. It's beyond me how you could think that God did not act deceptively. Just to clarify, "Knowingly and intentionally causing people to continue believing what he knew to be false, he conveyed false information intentionally to keep people believing a lie."

I tried to demonstrate this. But oh well.

I used that to demonstrate circular logic, it's a logical fallacy and it nullifies an argument. You assumed your conclusion in your premise being that intelligence cannot come about without God. I demonstrated intelligence coming from non-intelligence and you just said, "well yeah, because God causes intelligence in babies and things." Circular logic is fallacious, your conclusion is wrong or it was achieved with a wrong argument. Hell it could still be right but the argument you used is ridiculous and bad and wrong. Basic logic.

I answered this in another post

Oh so we're going to ignore the actual non-intelligent thing we come from. The zygote? You're gonna skip that part? Just like when humans poo, the excrement is non-intelligent, sperm and egg cells are non-intelligent, the zygote is non-intelligent. Yet eventually intelligence comes from that non-intelligence, it's a natural process that occurs thousands, if not millions of times a day in a variety of animals, some of which do so outside of the body.

Once again, you are committing the FALLACY OF COMPOSITION. The car as a whole can drive, but the parts that make up the car cant drive. This what you are saying, that humans are intelligent, but the process in which humans derive aren't intelligent. This is clearly fallacious. So far, scientists have not been able to figure out how did LIFE come from nonlife, let alone intelligence from nonintelligence. Before you have intelligence, you have to have life. There is no plausible scientific theory on this as of yet. Second, the probability of this occuring without the guide of ID is abstronomical in itself. So we have very good reasons to believe that life never came from nonlife.

A zygote doesn't "make me up" It is in it's entirety an non-intelligent thing that does not constitute an intelligent thing. Eventually as the zygote changes and grows it becomes intelligent. Hence why the fallacy you propose does not apply. The zygote is not non-intelligent because it is made up of non-intelligent things, it is non-intelligent in it's entirety. You really need to do a bit more research on the fallacies you propose because this is obviously not a fallacy composition.

The sperm comes from an INTELLIGENT BEING. The sperm fertilizes ovum, producing a zygote. But the sperm comes from an intelligent being. The process that made you could not think, could not comprehend, but the origin of your being, the source of you came from your parents, which are, intelligent. So this "zygote" business is fallacious in all aspects. Hell, you can go an any factory and see all kinds of machinery and parts. You can stick your hand in a machine and say "this part isn't intelligent". But that doesnt mean that the man that built the machine isn't intelligent.

indeed, it does appear that intelligence came from non-intelligence.

Well, to me it appears that intelligence came from intelligence.

What is a causal cause? This seems to be gibberish.

A causal cause is a causal agent. God was atemporal before he created the universe, and became temporal after he created the universe. So there was no time before the universe began to exist, but there was a causal agent.

Technically a 13.7 billion years or any amount of time for that matter is not comparable to infinity. What do you mean by the singularity was infinite? It was infinite in density but as previously mentioned, time didn't exist or certainly not in the same sense we know it until the expansion.

I meant infinite in terms of eternity. The point is, we know that the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. If there was no time before it, there has to be some kind of transcendent explanation as to why. We cant just shrug our shoulders and go home for the night. There has to be a transcendent cause that caused the universe to begin. Point blank, period. Since there was no matter or space before the singularity expanded, the cause had to exist beyond nature. This is necessary. The cause of the universe could not itself be part of the universe.

The most popular and well established theory is the Big bang theory and that does consist of a singularity.

That is true, the standard model of the big bang has the most evidence supporting it. That hasnt stopped some physicists from postulating other theories. But regardless, the universe began to exist.

That wasn't the point, the point was that God brought death and sin into the universe by creating creatures with a sinful nature. Something i think you've already agreed with me on despite your earlier objections.

I never objected to humans having sinful natures from the very beginning. But so what? God gave humans free will. If you have children, is it your desire for them to be progammed to do whatever you tell them to do?? I am trying to see where you are going with this because you are making it seem as if free will is a bad thing. You have free will to either make the right decisions, or make the wrong decisions, if you are tempted to do what is wrong, you have a sinful nature. That is how the game goes.

You stated yourself that humans have a sinful nature and God has a holy nature. You brought the concept of natures into this now deal with their consequences. God created humans with the capability and the probability to sin whilst free will was available to those with a holy nature and there was no possibility for sin or apparently death. Why? Why did God not create humans with a holy nature? Why did God create humans with a sinful nature when there was an alternative that consists of free will also?

You cant have free will if you are progammed to do what someone tells you to do as opposed to what you want to do. So I am not sure what "alternate" idea you are thinking of here.

I wouldn't say "just" but you are right, I do not like, believe or accept the notion of vicarious redemption.

And you dont because of the reasons i mentioned.

It's almost like you ignored the Biblical references? I even said I would happily repost them for you in the ABOVE QUOTED MESSAGE! If you don't read what I write then what's the point in responding to me? You may as well debate yourself. This is ridiculous. Read the damn quoted message and if you failed to read the Biblical quotes earlier in the debate make a request to me to REPOST THEM! I don't understand why you are going on about this crap, I made it bloody well clear that there were other motives and then i offered to show you the objective basis I am presenting and you flat out ignore it? Do you want me to debate you or not? From what i can tell you just want to debate yourself and ignore what I write. This is stupid, please. For the love of God please. Read what is being debated and don't just pretend to know what I am thinking or doing and why. This is the prime example of willful ignorance. /end rant!

Easy cupcake lol. I am not aware of any quoted biblical references. As I read what you say above, im not exactly sure what the heck you are talking about. As far as you debating me is concerned, quit while you are behind lol

Indeed, it appears morality is subjective. I disagree that with God it would be meaningfully objective though, as I have presented. You also missed one of my posts one page back, I posted two and you only responded to one, that had the Euthyphro dilemma part on it.

Oh, thats what you are talking about. Yeah, I purposely didn't respond to it. I am on numerous other threads, all of this typing and thinking can leave me mentally drained.

So the example you tried to give of something being objectively wrong with the existence of God being assumed happens to have been condoned by God? This is laughable. I think you're demonstrating my point for me, do i need to say anything else in response to this? You are defeating your own argument, and it's great, thanks for the help, I mean I could have easily done it myself but this just takes a load off.

What?? If God has morally sufficient reasons to allow for allowing a genocide, then it will happen. God is the author of life. All life belongs to him. He has to right to give it, and he has the right to take it.

 

[sojourner]

God is all powerful, why make a man just to die to save everyone when he could just do it by thinking it happening?

Yes, I know I will get a lot of comments saying "Jesus is no man! He is God!" Well, technically isn't he a demigod? Half man half God? And even if you don't consider him to be, it just made people suffer from sadness, especially Mary the mother of Jesus.

God doesn't save us through human sacrifice. God saves us by reconciling us to God through becoming one of us. The sacrifice of the cross was not to buy God's love, but to show God's love for us.

 

[filthy tugboat]

You are assuming that a delusion takes place only when someone is being lied to or deliberately being deceived by their perception of reality. I tried to point out why this isn't the case. But ok, we disagree.

No, I'm suggesting no such thing, you are the one comparing your ridiculous police analogy to God sending a delusion to people. It's almost like you are suggesting the police have power to do the things God can do. I was telling you that this is not true for pages now but you just wouldn't let it go. God sent a delusion to a group of people, the cops in your scenario dressed a girl like a hooker and let people try and ask for sex. Are they the same? Hell no, you seem convinced that they are though.

I tried to demonstrate this. But oh well.

Tried to demonstrate what? That God knowingly and intentionally caused people to continue believing something he knew to be false? Tried to demonstrate that God has the potential to be deceptive? I really don't think you did, from the start you tried to suggest that God could not act deceptively and that he was honest always, why would you change your mind now?

I answered this in another post

You only proposed the circular logic two posts ago and the one before this one had you trying to suggest that my satirical demonstration of your fallacious and demonstrably poor argument was accurate. How did you answer this in another post?

Once again, you are committing the FALLACY OF COMPOSITION. The car as a whole can drive, but the parts that make up the car cant drive.

Here you already show why you don't understand my argument. A zygote is not a part of me, a zygote is the entirety of the beginning of an organism. if a zygote is non-intelligent then a zygote is non-intelligent. For this to be considered a fallacy of composition I would be saying that my arm is not intelligent therefore I am not intelligent because an arm is a part of my composition. A zygote is not a part of my composition.

This what you are saying, that humans are intelligent, but the process in which humans derive aren't intelligent.

Well although this statement is true, this is not what I am saying. If you were listening I was saying that zygotes are not intelligent but zygotes grow into humans which are intelligent. Intelligence forms from a non-intelligent source.

Second, the probability of this occuring without the guide of ID is abstronomical in itself. So we have very good reasons to believe that life never came from nonlife.

I doubt your claims, feel free to support them with some means of reasoning or evidence. From my understanding, ID is not a thing with probability attached to it, you are comparing something that is indescribable to something that is describable and may not even be unlikely. It's a comparison that cannot made. ID is not scientific, it's got no evidence to support it, it's conjecture, it's not even a hypothesis. If magic exists then it would be a better explanation for everything! GO ID!

The sperm comes from an INTELLIGENT BEING.

Just like poo.

The sperm fertilizes ovum, producing a zygote.

And just like the sperm and the ovum, the zygote is non-intelligent.

But the sperm comes from an intelligent being. The process that made you could not think, could not comprehend, but the origin of your being, the source of you came from your parents, which are, intelligent. So this "zygote" business is fallacious in all aspects.

You aren't making sense. I don't think you understand the fallacy of composition.

Hell, you can go an any factory and see all kinds of machinery and parts. You can stick your hand in a machine and say "this part isn't intelligent". But that doesnt mean that the man that built the machine isn't intelligent.

OK, you definitely don't understand the fallacy of composition. Does the machine compose a man? Is a machine a part of a man or does it make up part of a man? Of course not therefore this has absolutely nothing to do with the fallacy of composition.

A causal cause is a causal agent. God was atemporal before he created the universe, and became temporal after he created the universe. So there was no time before the universe began to exist, but there was a causal agent.

If God was atemporal how did he do anything? Time is the measurement of change, without time there is no change.

I meant infinite in terms of eternity. The point is, we know that the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. If there was no time before it, there has to be some kind of transcendent explanation as to why. We cant just shrug our shoulders and go home for the night. There has to be a transcendent cause that caused the universe to begin. Point blank, period. Since there was no matter or space before the singularity expanded, the cause had to exist beyond nature. This is necessary. The cause of the universe could not itself be part of the universe.

Look at it this way, at the singularity, all known forces of the universe, everything we know about science breaks down and is just no longer true. We don't understand anything about it and we can't make any conclusions or meaningfully speak about it. There is nothing to be said, we can't do anything but shrug our shoulders. To pretend that an answer can be found anytime soon is simply ignorance.

I never objected to humans having sinful natures from the very beginning. But so what? God gave humans free will. If you have children, is it your desire for them to be progammed to do whatever you tell them to do?? I am trying to see where you are going with this because you are making it seem as if free will is a bad thing. You have free will to either make the right decisions, or make the wrong decisions, if you are tempted to do what is wrong, you have a sinful nature. That is how the game goes.

Why do you keep going on about free will as if only beings with sinful nature's can have it. You said that God has free will and that God has a holy nature, why don't we have a holy nature and have free will? Why are we stuck with a sinful nature when you propose that there is an alternative nature that also possesses free will?

You cant have free will if you are progammed to do what someone tells you to do as opposed to what you want to do. So I am not sure what "alternate" idea you are thinking of here.

Holy nature.

What?? If God has morally sufficient reasons to allow for allowing a genocide, then it will happen. God is the author of life. All life belongs to him. He has to right to give it, and he has the right to take it.

You originally stated that if God exists it would be objectively wrong to enter into someone else's house and kill their family for religious reasons. Now your saying it's ok if they're the right religious reasons. So as I was saying, your argument is self defeating, you are doing my job for me.

And you dont because of the reasons i mentioned.

Why are you obsessed with my reasons and motives? They are of no consequence to our debate, commenting on them is pointless. You have demonstrated your ignorance in the matter and a complete non interest in hearing what I have to say about it.

I am not aware of any quoted biblical references.

I figured you ignored that too. As I've already stated, you don't seem too keen on debating anyone but yourself. Your lack of interest in even reading what I write kind of shows your willful ignorance on these subjects.

As I read what you say above, im not exactly sure what the heck you are talking about.

It's probably because you aren't reading what I write, you just don't care about what anyone says except maybe yourself but it's becoming apparent that you don't even know what you are saying half the time, you even think you're ahead in this debate, it's laughable, you've already conceded multiple points to me anyone reading our debate knows who's ahead and if you continue to flat out ignore what is written, I don't see any point continuing the debate, you're not interested and I don't want to keep talking to someone who's not listening.

As far as you debating me is concerned, quit while you are behind lol

Arrogance? I thought Jesus preached being humble? Hypocrite or just bad?

Oh, thats what you are talking about. Yeah, I purposely didn't respond to it. I am on numerous other threads, all of this typing and thinking can leave me mentally drained.

More willful ignorance, no wonder your responses don't make sense and you don't understand what I'm saying, you're not reading it. Your actions in this thread are rude and you have no credible grounds to stand on intellectually or personally. Anyone reading now knows how irresponsible, ignorant dishonest you are.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

God doesn't save us through human sacrifice. God saves us by reconciling us to God through becoming one of us. The sacrifice of the cross was not to buy God's love, but to show God's love for us.

True, except for using the word 'sacrifice'; as I stated earlier in the thread Jesus' pretending to perish on the cross was not a sacrifice, by definition, since he lost nothing.

 

[Thief]

God doesn't save us through human sacrifice. God saves us by reconciling us to God through becoming one of us. The sacrifice of the cross was not to buy God's love, but to show God's love for us.

There was no sacrifice....other than the Carpenter going ahead to prepare a place for His followers.

Reconcile with God?
That will be done shortly after your last breath.
You shall have your 'day of reckoning'.

 

[Pegg]

True, except for using the word 'sacrifice'; as I stated earlier in the thread Jesus' pretending to perish on the cross was not a sacrifice, by definition, since he lost nothing.

Jesus died and 3 days later was resurrected, now considering the scriptures say that every person who has died will eventually be resurrected, is it fair to say that no one has lost anything?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

When somebody else is deceased for 3 days and then is risen, ask them.

until then, my statement stands demonstrated. Unfulfilled promises are not to be relied upon. Especially those not fulfilled for thousands of years.

 

[miss interpret]

Jesus died and 3 days later was resurrected, now considering the scriptures say that every person who has died will eventually be resurrected, is it fair to say that no one has lost anything?

Thought Jesus had a physical body when he was ressurrected, no one else will.

 

[miss interpret]

When somebody else is deceased for 3 days and then is risen, ask them.

until then, my statement stands demonstrated. Unfulfilled promises are not to be relied upon. Especially those not fulfilled for thousands of years.

Jesus gave up his physical body on the cross when he had committed no wrong doing or sin, that is the sacrifice.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Jesus gave up his physical body on the cross when he had committed no wrong doing or sin, that is the sacrifice.

But he upgraded.

That's not a loss. He gained by dieing.

A lot of people die innocently. In fact, I daresay most do.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, I'm suggesting no such thing, you are the one comparing your ridiculous police analogy to God sending a delusion to people. It's almost like you are suggesting the police have power to do the things God can do. I was telling you that this is not true for pages now but you just wouldn't let it go. God sent a delusion to a group of people, the cops in your scenario dressed a girl like a hooker and let people try and ask for sex. Are they the same? Hell no, you seem convinced that they are though.

First of all, you dont even know what the delusion was. You have no idea what the delusion was. You are only stating what you THINK the delusion was to justify your constant barrage of attacks on biblical morality. Second, a delusion isn't excluded to to someone sending you something that isn't true to deceive you. In the wiki article, there are many types of delusions Delusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and the one that is defined as a "non-bizarre" delusion could be exactly what happened in the case in question, and that kind of delusion is based on a preconceived notion on the persons part.

Tried to demonstrate what? That God knowingly and intentionally caused people to continue believing something he knew to be false? Tried to demonstrate that God has the potential to be deceptive? I really don't think you did, from the start you tried to suggest that God could not act deceptively and that he was honest always, why would you change your mind now?

I demonstrated how a person could be deluded without someone altering their perception of reality. Thats exactly what I did. In the example I gave, a person was being delusioned by a falsehood based on his preconceived notion. His preconceived notion allowed him to believe a falsehood. This is as clear as day. God "sent" this delusion to those indivivuals just like the police lieutenant could have sent his guys on the force to set up sting operations. There is no lying going on here.

Here you already show why you don't understand my argument. A zygote is not a part of me, a zygote is the entirety of the beginning of an organism. if a zygote is non-intelligent then a zygote is non-intelligent. For this to be considered a fallacy of composition I would be saying that my arm is not intelligent therefore I am not intelligent because an arm is a part of my composition. A zygote is not a part of my composition.

What? I said intelligence cannot come from nonintelligence and you responded by asking is a zygote intelligent and used that as an example to imply intelligence can come from nonintellence. No, a zygote is intelligent but there would be no zygote without two intelligent people getting together to make a zygote. To even ask the quesiton "is a zygote intelligent" is exactly why this is fallacy of composition.

Well although this statement is true, this is not what I am saying. If you were listening I was saying that zygotes are not intelligent but zygotes grow into humans which are intelligent. Intelligence forms from a non-intelligent source.

Right, they grow up to be intelligent, but they didnt come from nonintelligence, they came from your intellectual parents. Now if you want to argue this case, as I said before, just trace back every single living and reproducing organsm back to its origins and this is where science is not able to determine how or why life originated in the first place, and the probability of life coming from naturalistic means are astronomical. So you really dont have a leg to stand on.

I doubt your claims, feel free to support them with some means of reasoning or evidence. From my understanding, ID is not a thing with probability attached to it, you are comparing something that is indescribable to something that is describable and may not even be unlikely. It's a comparison that cannot made. ID is not scientific, it's got no evidence to support it, it's conjecture, it's not even a hypothesis. If magic exists then it would be a better explanation for everything! GO ID!

Its funny you say ID has no evidence to support it, when right now there is nothing to support abiogensis. Scientists dont have a clue as to how or why life originated from nonliving material. So we are on equal playing fields here. The only question is, which is more plausible. In order for life to be possible for human life at all, Roger Penrose estimated that for life to have originated by natural means would be a probability of 10(10123), and if you wrote that number out it would be an 10 as the base and the #1 as the exponent, followed by 123 zeros. Roger Penrose(The Road to Reality [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005], pp. 762-5. Very improbable number.And these are the odds for the universe to be fined tuned to even permit human life. The probability of human life forming after beating those odds are also improbable, but for sake of simplicity we dont need to get deep in to this, but if you want to, we can. The fact of the matter is scientists dont know how life formed from nonliving materials. And even if it did, it had to beat incredible odds (which is an understatement). So once again, we have two alternatives, one which is improbable and the other is probable. So you mock ID, when the human cell is more complex than a space shuttle. So if we conclude that a space shuttle is intelligently designed then why do some people hestitate to conclude things more complex than a space shuttle was designed.? Is it because they are aware of its theistic implications?

And just like the sperm and the ovum, the zygote is non-intelligent.

But the zygote didnt come from non-intelligence. Geez dude, are you listening?