(July 11, 2013 at 6:49 pm)Consilius Wrote: I was presenting a point. A summary of three great and widely controversial premises:
1. The world was created.
2. The world is good.
3. Good comes from good.

That is good and all, so long as you understand no creator had any part in the world's creation and that good exists independent of any creator.

If you can accept that 'creation is good' etc then you are also accepting God. Just calling it something else.

We call it God/ That's what people named it/ That's the definition.

(July 11, 2013 at 7:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If you can accept that 'creation is good' etc then you are also accepting God.

If one is delusional, which I am not.

So denying something you accept isn't delusional?

(July 11, 2013 at 7:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So denying something you accept isn't delusional?

What is delusional is accepting that there is a creator behind creation, which I clearly do not accept. As I have already stated, before your word twisting, the world is good and independent of a creator.

But what if good and creator are references to the same thing?

Yeah of course you might object to the baggage added to 'God' that you in no way agree to. But by stating that you can understand that creation can be good you are saying exactly the same as me about creation. I'm not trying to trick you here.

(July 11, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(July 11, 2013 at 6:49 pm)Consilius Wrote: I was presenting a point. A summary of three great and widely controversial premises:
1. The world was created.
2. The world is good.
3. Good comes from good.

That is good and all, so long as you understand no creator had any part in the world's creation and that good exists independent of any creator.

A creation can come from nothing but a creator.
On an unrelated note, if good was created, it could not exist independent of that creator.
And so we begin.

(July 11, 2013 at 7:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: But what if good and creator are references to the same thing?

They are not, especially if we are referring to the biblical creator. And that is not a road I wish to go down with you again, especially if you plan to insist in interpreting scripture with a rose colored mentality.

---

(July 11, 2013 at 8:01 pm)Consilius Wrote: A creation can come from nothing but a creator.

That is merely a baseless assertion absent of any proof.

(July 11, 2013 at 8:03 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(July 11, 2013 at 8:01 pm)Consilius Wrote: A creation can come from nothing but a creator.

That is merely a baseless assertion absent of any proof.

It's self evident if you use the term creation.

---

(July 11, 2013 at 8:03 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(July 11, 2013 at 7:58 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: But what if good and creator are references to the same thing?

They are not, especially if we are referring to the biblical creator.

You're addressing only your own prejudice.

(July 11, 2013 at 8:08 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It's self evident if you use the term creation.

False. Creation refers to something being created, not that a creator is necessarily behind its creation.

---

(July 11, 2013 at 8:08 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You're addressing only your own prejudice.

I read objectively, without theistic bias.