RE: If you believe in the God of the Bible, why try to prove it logically?
June 21, 2013 at 7:44 pm
(June 21, 2013 at 7:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: @ pineapple
You didn't give your dog another toy. The toy came from another person (/god).
Regardless... the toy represents a gift of love. It's the dogs choice to accept it or not. If he rebels and refuses your toy, he chooses to rebel against good. (sorry I see how I mixed that up a bit)
Rebellion against good is bad. There is only good. There are not several (fully) goods. You can't bypass the choice to be good with an alternative good, or your original good can't have been good at all. (talking about ultimate goods, as God supposedly is)
I'm sure that you think that there's reason to be good. If we took out the dogma and talked about this minus all of the religious baggage, I wonder if we'd have much disagreement.
Personally I think anyone is evil for not choosing vanilla
How are any of your posts a response to the question:
If you believe in the God of the Bible, why try to prove it logically?
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
