Earth, and everyone on it, is utterly and completely insginficant

Rana said:
I am saying that if free will was given by God and it was truly free will, than our choices would not be punished. We would be free to make those choices. God, according to your belief determines what is right and what is wrong, your God also knows , according to your belief system what choices you will make. Then there is the whole Calvinist philosophy that God chooses who to "save"

Ciecero gave a great argument against free will.
Click to expand...

With every freedom (free will between making good choice or bad choices) comes a responsibility (rewards vs consequences)
 
Darla said:
Can you imagine Dixie on a date? I bet the women sit there like, oh man he soooo better be picking up the check.
Click to expand...

One of my ex-girlfriends told me a story about a blind date she once had. Apparently the guy was wearing a cape, and all he talked about was himself and how he thinks 90% of the world's population should be exterminated. She was thinking, "Well, at least I'll get a free meal." He ended up splitting the check.

A date with Dixie would probably be something like that, minus the genocide.
 
Occupant said:
why does he require us to worship him?

The bible says he is a jealous god....
Click to expand...

Does he "require" this? You are obviously not doing it, so he must NOT "require" it, huh?

The Bible says a lot of things, it is a book written by mortal men, trying to understand an omnipotent supernatural entity. Do you have a point?
 
Darla said:
Can you imagine Dixie on a date? I bet the women sit there like, oh man he soooo better be picking up the check.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize you were sizing me up for a date, sweetie. Believe me, this is not a typical Dixie date conversation.

For the record, I have never taken anyone on a date that I didn't pick up the check, and all associated expenses of the date. What kind of "men" are you accustomed to?
 
I may be a practicing Catholic, but I do take a very negative view of humanity, and all of its stupidity and prole-ishness. In many ways, I sympathize with Calvin when he said we all basically deserve hell.
 
Dixie said:
I didn't realize you were sizing me up for a date, sweetie. Believe me, this is not a typical Dixie date conversation.

For the record, I have never taken anyone on a date that I didn't pick up the check, and all associated expenses of the date. What kind of "men" are you accustomed to?
Click to expand...

Typically, there's no expectation for anyone named "Dixie" to pick up the check. :D
 
Dixie said:
Does he "require" this? You are obviously not doing it, so he must NOT "require" it, huh?

The Bible says a lot of things, it is a book written by mortal men, trying to understand an omnipotent supernatural entity. Do you have a point?
Click to expand...

How can someone who does not exist require anything of me?

I will keep your post in mind the next time you qoute the bible to justify one of your viewpoints.
Thanks
 
Rana said:
I am saying that if free will was given by God and it was truly free will, than our choices would not be punished. We would be free to make those choices. God, according to your belief determines what is right and what is wrong, your God also knows , according to your belief system what choices you will make. Then there is the whole Calvinist philosophy that God chooses who to "save"

Ciecero gave a great argument against free will.
Click to expand...

lol...uh no...that isn't freedom of choice, that making choice irrelevant.....if there are no consequences of choice, why bother to make a choice.....
 
Occupant said:
How can someone who does not exist require anything of me?

I will keep your post in mind the next time you qoute the bible to justify one of your viewpoints.
Thanks
Click to expand...

Yes, I would make sure to back it up on some stable media, a typical CD only lasts a few decades at best. Since I haven't ever quoted the Bible to justify one of my positions, I doubt I ever will, but just in case... you make sure you keep this, and make sure you have a backup somewhere as well.

And... If you can't prove that God doesn't exist, you should STFU making the claim. You don't BELIEVE God exists... I am fine with that.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, I would make sure to back it up on some stable media, a typical CD only lasts a few decades at best. Since I haven't ever quoted the Bible to justify one of my positions, I doubt I ever will, but just in case... you make sure you keep this, and make sure you have a backup somewhere as well.

And... If you can't prove that God doesn't exist, you should STFU making the claim. You don't BELIEVE God exists... I am fine with that.
Click to expand...

If you can't prove that God exists why should you keep on talking about it.
No one can absolutely prove it either way.

Stable media? Do not use your own brain.
 
Occupant said:
If you can't prove that God exists why should you keep on talking about it.
No one can absolutely prove it either way.

Stable media? Do not use your own brain.
Click to expand...

I haven't talked about it. You made the claim God didn't exist, it's up to you to prove your claim. But now, you are saying no one can absolutely prove it either way, so I guess you are admitting you were wrong before, when you claimed God didn't exist? It's okay, I know it's hard to admit when you're wrong. This will do just fine!

Yes, don't use your brain to store the post in memory which shows me saying that I don't use the Bible to make my points. You need something more stable than your brain. Since I have never used the Bible to make a point, I can't see any reason I would start doing it in the future, so you'll probably have to keep track of that post for a long time, and it's best you have stable media. Just a suggestion.
 
Dixie said:
I haven't talked about it. You made the claim God didn't exist, it's up to you to prove your claim. But now, you are saying no one can absolutely prove it either way, so I guess you are admitting you were wrong before, when you claimed God didn't exist? It's okay, I know it's hard to admit when you're wrong. This will do just fine!
Click to expand...

You are merely attempting to shift the burden of proof. If there were evidence that leprechauns do exist, for example, and I were to make the assertion that they do not exist, I would be obliged to provide evidence to support my claim. However, since there is no evidence to support the existence of leprechauns, support for my disbelief in leprechauns is not required. The same principle applies to God. There is no evidence to support the existence of God; until such a time that we discover evidence to support it, we may rightly conclude that he does not exist. It is not on us to provide evidence that he does not exist. That is a logical fallacy.
 
Baalim said:
You are merely attempting to shift the burden of proof. If there were evidence that leprechauns do exist, for example, and I were to make the assertion that they do not exist, I would be obliged to provide evidence to support my claim. However, since there is no evidence to support the existence of leprechauns, support for my disbelief in leprechauns is not required. The same principle applies to God. There is no evidence to support the existence of God; until such a time that we discover evidence to support it, we may rightly conclude that he does not exist. It is not on us to provide evidence that he does not exist. That is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

I think its better summed up by the phrase "that which is presented wthout evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."
 
Baalim said:
You are merely attempting to shift the burden of proof. If there were evidence that leprechauns do exist, for example, and I were to make the assertion that they do not exist, I would be obliged to provide evidence to support my claim. However, since there is no evidence to support the existence of leprechauns, support for my disbelief in leprechauns is not required. The same principle applies to God. There is no evidence to support the existence of God; until such a time that we discover evidence to support it, we may rightly conclude that he does not exist. It is not on us to provide evidence that he does not exist. That is a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence to support God's existence, you just reject the evidence because you don't believe it. Go read my "Proof That God Exists" thread, and you'll understand. We have to start by evaluating a spiritual entity on a spiritual basis and with spiritual evidence, not physical. You want to rely only on physical evidence, and there is none for a supernatural entity, nor should there be. However, there is an enormous amount of spiritual evidence, which you refuse to acknowledge.

IF I said I didn't know if leprechauns existed, and you said they most certainly didn't, the burden of proof is on you, as you are making a definitive claim, I am not. I don't know if God exists, I think the question largely depends on where your faith lies. I believe God exists, but I can't prove it to you, because you reject spiritual evidence. You don't believe God exists, but you have no evidence, other than lack of physical evidence, which is silly to presume should exist for a supernatural omnipotent being.

The ONLY logical fallacy here, is your thinking that faith in science is somehow more relevant than faith in spirituality, when determining the 'existence' of God.
 
Dixie said:
There is plenty of evidence to support God's existence, you just reject the evidence because you don't believe it. Go read my "Proof That God Exists" thread, and you'll understand. We have to start by evaluating a spiritual entity on a spiritual basis and with spiritual evidence, not physical. You want to rely only on physical evidence, and there is none for a supernatural entity, nor should there be. However, there is an enormous amount of spiritual evidence, which you refuse to acknowledge.
Click to expand...

I reject "spiritual" evidence because it is subjective and untestable.

IF I said I didn't know if leprechauns existed, and you said they most certainly didn't, the burden of proof is on you, as you are making a definitive claim, I am not.
Click to expand...

LOL. Okay, let's play this game. Are there magic unicorns living on the moon, Dixie?

Something is not assumed to be true until there is evidence to support it. By default, we may assume that there is no God, since there is no evidence to support it. Since you claim that God does exist, the burden of proof is on you.

The ONLY logical fallacy here, is your thinking that faith in science is somehow more relevant than faith in spirituality, when determining the 'existence' of God.
Click to expand...

There is no "faith in science." You either accept the evidence, or you do not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top