(April 2, 2016 at 11:17 am)robvalue Wrote: Lol my friends would kill me if they saw what I was writing

No, me and the cat are just good friends! It would have been entirely inappropriate, and also he scratched me when I tried.

RR: It would be very unusual, yes. I would not however just make up a magical explanation. I'd actually investigate using scientific methods if possible. At no point is appealing to incredulity useful.

Ok... so just so stories about evolution being the cause are out!

Yeah. Good one RR. You're right, I probably wouldn't try to explain your lottery wins with evolution.

LFC: I already drank all their licquor. Either that or they're gonna be needing some more cleaning supplies!

(April 2, 2016 at 11:59 am)robvalue Wrote: Yeah. Good one RR. You're right, I probably wouldn't try to explain your lottery wins with evolution.

LFC: I already drank all their licquor. Either that or they're gonna be needing some more cleaning supplies!

But then again,  it does improve survivability... perhaps picking the winning ticket evolved 

(April 2, 2016 at 9:01 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 8:43 am)athrock Wrote: Agreed. This discussion assumes that point for the sake of argument.

However, if God does exist, then I think it is reasonable to say that justification for the exemption exists; consequently, there is no special pleading.

If God does not exist, then we should have a very different discussion!

Well until you have proven God and his attributes, special pleading still applies. Because until you have proof, you are asserting that there is something that doesn't have to play by the same rules as everything else.

Ah...the ultimate "Get Out of Jail Free" card for atheists.

Prove God exists first, and then we'll talk. 

(As if we can't have an intelligent conversation about God even if He doesn't.)

But whether I can prove God exists or not is irrelevant because the attributes of God which we are considering can be evaluated either way. IOW, we don't need an ACTUAL God in order to discuss the omnipotence or omniscience of a theoretical god, do we?

(April 2, 2016 at 9:14 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 8:41 am)athrock Wrote: Can you prove this? You know...prove a negative?  


How does parting the Red Sea violate anyone's free will? Or leaving an image on the Shroud of Turin?

These are signs of God's action, but people still reject them. No one is forced to believe because of miracles.

Lol, what?  That was snark, Athrock.  

<snort> Coming from you, easily the Queen of Snark in this forum, that's pretty funny.

(April 2, 2016 at 9:14 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: My point is, you don't (logically) get to make 101 supernatural assertions about God in one breath, and then in the same breath try to compare him to a humanoid, physical world scenario, and expect the analogy to hold.  

The Red Sea?  (Or "sea of reeds" depending on your interpretation, ofc.)  Okay...I didn't realize I was talking to a literalist here...

Do you know what I have learned from this thread?  That theists are capable of rationalizing ANYTHING when it comes to God.  No matter how ridiculous.

I AM a literalist - which means that I look for the intended meaning of the author. (It's raining cats and dogs means it is raining very hard.)

What you probably meant to say is that I take the scriptures literally. (It's raining cats and dogs means cats and dogs are falling from the sky.)

And you would be wrong about me.

(April 2, 2016 at 9:44 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 6:31 am)athrock Wrote: God is not complex. He is simple with no component parts.

I have seen this concept explained by both Catholic and Evangelical authors. Here is one:

Is God Simple?
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/attributes-of-god

You answered the question with yet another claim:  "a divine mind is startlingly simple".   Another assertion wrapped in a larger assertion; (both without evidence) offered as an explanation for a contradiction caused by your first assertion.  Thanks for clearing all that up for me, lol.  So...the idea is to just keep asserting things until all the logical inconsistencies have excuses?  Wonderful...

Have you ever spent any time studying this aspect of Christian theology, Lady? I think not.

So, I look well-read and knowledgeable about the faith, and you look ignorant and foolish in your attempt to mock someone who knows more than you.

This is your M.O., isn't it? To laugh derisively when confronted with things you don't know or understand. You do it often.

(April 2, 2016 at 12:37 pm)athrock Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 9:14 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Lol, what?  That was snark, Athrock.  

<snort> Coming from you, easily the Queen of Snark in this forum, that's pretty funny.

(April 2, 2016 at 9:14 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: My point is, you don't (logically) get to make 101 supernatural assertions about God in one breath, and then in the same breath try to compare him to a humanoid, physical world scenario, and expect the analogy to hold.  

The Red Sea?  (Or "sea of reeds" depending on your interpretation, ofc.)  Okay...I didn't realize I was talking to a literalist here...

Do you know what I have learned from this thread?  That theists are capable of rationalizing ANYTHING when it comes to God.  No matter how ridiculous.

I AM a literalist - which means that I look for the intended meaning of the author. (It's raining cats and dogs means it is raining very hard.)

What you probably meant to say is that I take the scriptures literally. (It's raining cats and dogs means cats and dogs are falling from the sky.)

And you would be wrong about me.

Yes, that is what I meant. Wow, queen of snark on the forum?! I'm not sure how I feel about that title!

(April 2, 2016 at 12:41 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 12:37 pm)athrock Wrote: <snort> Coming from you, easily the Queen of Snark in this forum, that's pretty funny.


I AM a literalist - which means that I look for the intended meaning of the author. (It's raining cats and dogs means it is raining very hard.)

What you probably meant to say is that I take the scriptures literally. (It's raining cats and dogs means cats and dogs are falling from the sky.)

And you would be wrong about me.

Yes, that is what I meant.  Wow, queen of snark on the forum?!  I'm not sure how I feel about that title!

Oh, believe me, you OWN that title. None of the other gals posting here even come close.

(April 2, 2016 at 12:41 pm)athrock Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 9:44 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: You answered the question with yet another claim:  "a divine mind is startlingly simple".   Another assertion wrapped in a larger assertion; (both without evidence) offered as an explanation for a contradiction caused by your first assertion.  Thanks for clearing all that up for me, lol.  So...the idea is to just keep asserting things until all the logical inconsistencies have excuses?  Wonderful...

Have you ever spent any time studying this aspect of Christian theology, Lady? I think not.

So, I look well-read and knowledgeable about the faith, and you look ignorant and foolish in your attempt to mock someone who knows more than you.

This is your M.O., isn't it? To laugh derisively when confronted with things you don't know or understand. You do it often.

Athrock:

You cannot demonstrate any God exists.

You cannot demonstrate the Christian God exists.

You cannot demonstrate with evidence that if he did exist, where, how, or in what form he would or could exist in.

You cannot demonstrate how he accomplished all of the things you assert he accomplished.

I laugh at bald assertions with no evidence to back them up, and you have no demonstrable knowledge for any of what I listed above.

(April 2, 2016 at 12:43 pm)athrock Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 12:41 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Yes, that is what I meant.  Wow, queen of snark on the forum?!  I'm not sure how I feel about that title!

Oh, believe me, you OWN that title. None of the other gals posting here even come close.

I didn't realize I was perceived that way...but...I think I'm okay with it. [emoji41]