Sorry for the delayed reply I must have clicked it and not responded and it got lost in the already read posts.

(March 12, 2010 at 2:58 pm)tavarish Wrote:

---

(March 12, 2010 at 7:51 am)tackattack Wrote: aside from the minor off topic distraction I apologize DBP for missing your question.

(March 10, 2010 at 2:24 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: What are these aspects of god Tack?

Divine Love
Divine Joy
Calmness/ Peace
Divine Wisdom
Creator/ Sculptor
Omnimax
whole yet seperate (trinity)

You don't find any of these to be logically impossible?

Omnipotent yet unable to go against his nature? and subject to a nature?
1 entity = 3 entities?
An absolute of a subjective emotion (love, joy)
Calmness and Peace - punishment of sin and apostasy anyone?

Although the creator/sculptor is not logically impossible, if it were true, he would have to be a very inefficient creator, or have a very good sense of humor. 99 percent of species on this planet have died out, and divine intervention came ONLY after billions of years of development, just to make a species that has many inadequacies, shortcomings, and irrational fears.

---

logically impossible.. well that would depend on your definition of the above attributes, I really don't see them as contradictory. 1 in 3 not at all.an absolute external source for our limited subjective view, no. calmness and peace and sin.. well I know my definition of sin differs from yours, but no not a contradiction. You're forgetting that God also created (supposedly) things other than species. Our inadequacies I see the same as an infant growing out of irrational thinking.

Please also see post 57 if you have the time.

(March 11, 2010 at 10:15 pm)Pippy Wrote:

Quote:Since when have I had sex with men?

You were proudly bi-sexual when we were discussing gayness back in the day. I thought the definition of bi-sexual included sex with men... I may have been wrong. It is not much of a burn though. Could have sex with vegetables or something worse.

Being bisexual does not mean you have had sex with men. And before a possibly pending response:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twlAq0Q7T...playnext=1

Quote:Again, please allow me to apologize. I am not a troll. 4chan zit farms that cause consternation on purpose are trolls. But you won't listen. If Adrian deems you a troll or a CT than you must be. It is his web site.

Thanks,
-Pip

If it matters... I don't think you're a troll. A nutter? Perhaps. A bit mental? Probably. A little sexually repressed? It would seem so.

But a troll? Hardly.

Judging by the answers given thus far, it seems I get to treat you with answers that are unique.

(March 6, 2010 at 6:29 pm)Soyouz Wrote: 1. What happens if the religion you're believing in is wrong? Since there are more than the one God you're believing in. Don't you think it's a waste of time praying when you have no idea what might be the truth?

I'm going to resist the bait (your claim that multiple deities exist) and answer the question you're really asking. Christianity is the only religion in the entire world whose afterlife is based on grace; i.e., every single other religion on the planet teaches an afterlife that is reached by some kind of balance of good works. Christianity is singularly unique in that salvation (afterlife) is NOT based on any human good works at all, period. It is based on the good works of Jesus Christ, in whom alone the believer is saved. This is because "a balance of good works" is precisely that, a balance, meaning that in addition there are bad works, violations of God's law. In human courts, a person found guilty of breaking several criminal laws is never told by the judge, "Well, aside from these laws you have broken you're an otherwise pretty decent fellow. You may go. No sentence for you." It would be unjust to not punish criminal acts. He may be a decent fellow, but he is nevertheless guilty of having broken several criminal laws, and justice demands that crime is punished. On what grounds, then, would a person think God would leave sins unpunished? That would be unjust.

So I am confronted with two scenarios:

(1) If my religion is wrong, then it does not matter because I'll be okay on a balance of good works in whatever other religion turns out to be true. Buddhism. Wicca. Islam. Hinduism. Judaism. My life will not have been a waste, because of that balance of good works. My beliefs may have been wrong all along but (i) they were the guiding principle that led to those good works and (ii) in the afterlife it won't ultimately matter anyway. Whether it's reincarnation, attaining enlightenment, the judgment seat of Allah, etc., it all comes down to an overall balance of good works in the end.

(2) If my religion is right, then I'll be saved by God's grace in Christ's righteousness irrespective of my works, for salvation is by his merits alone who took upon himself the punishment my sins were due. And anyone who was banking on a balance of good works will have to confront the punishment their law-breaking is due, which no amount of good works can hide. As our own justice systems recognize, to not punish law-breaking is unjust. And the God they'll face is perfectly just.

Consequently: it wouldn't matter if my religion is wrong, but it sure matters if it's right. As C.S. Lewis said, it is of no importance if Christianity turns out to be false, but of infinite importance if it turns out to be true.

(March 6, 2010 at 6:29 pm)Soyouz Wrote: 2. Don't you think heaven would be extremely boring after 5 billion years of being there, and still having forever left? It may be paradise but everything gets boring in the long run.

First of all, five billion years of being in heaven will not have even begun to scratch the surface of my praising and enjoying my Savior. Secondly, I have no reason to think that we'll even register the passage of time in heaven, given the descriptions of it we do have; i.e., "five billion years" will be a meaningless expression. Either way, eternity could never exhaust my love for Jesus Christ.

(March 6, 2010 at 6:29 pm)Soyouz Wrote: 3. Who created God?

That is called the Complex Question fallacy. "Who created the Creator?" is a complex of two separate questions: (1) "Is the Creator himself created?" (2) "If so, who created him?" Asking who created the Creator presupposes that he was created at all, in the same way that "Have you stopped beating your spouse?" presupposes you were beating her at all. And it is a fallacy because it requires the Christian to implicitly concede that God even had a creator, which begs that first question. So, "Is the Creator himself created?" No, because he is eternal. To ask about the origin of something that has no origin is a meaningless question; and if not created, then to ask who created him is twice meaningless.

And if you want to suggest that the universe had no beginning, I would direct your attention to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which vindicated the Hawking-Penrose theorems by proving that any universe which on average is in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. "With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe," writes Alex Vilenkin. "There is no escape; they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes, Hill & Wang, 2006). As their work shows, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to Planck time (such as the Gott-Li model and its "adapted Rindler vacuum").

(March 6, 2010 at 6:29 pm)Soyouz Wrote: 4. Why does God let bad things happen to good people?

He doesn't. Ever.

(March 6, 2010 at 6:29 pm)Soyouz Wrote: 5. The reason you don't commit horrible crimes, is it because you're afraid to be smited by God or because you think it's morally wrong?

Because I love God, and because I think it is morally wrong.

(March 6, 2010 at 6:29 pm)Soyouz Wrote: 6. If no one created God, why can't we say no one created the world?

You can, if you want. But I think that would qualify as a delusion, a view contradicted by an extraordinary degree of evidence to the contrary.

(March 6, 2010 at 7:20 pm)Soyouz Wrote: I think that people will, in the not so far distant future, start realizing that religion is wrong and will sit at the dinner table laughing over how silly people were when we believed in the religions we have today.

Are you aware of how many times that very prediction has been made?

(March 6, 2010 at 7:20 pm)Soyouz Wrote: It really really boggles my mind how people can believe in such absolute crap (in my opinion, I don't want to offend anyone).

It sure beats the brainless twaddle you subscribe to. Err, in my opinion. Don't want to offend you. (Did you catch the hint being made there?)

---

(March 10, 2010 at 10:31 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Since when have I had sex with men? Odd. I rather think I would have remembered it.

Bad sex usually isn't terribly memorable.

Not entirely, as a whole%

Thank you SAE,

That was kind of you. I know I appear nutty. If it's any consolation, some of you'se look crazy to me... I am not here like Dave Mabus. I don't know if I am sexually repressed. I have never been tender with a woman, but I am OK with that. Surely my dislike of adult entertainment doesn't count as repression?

I though bisexuality meant you absolutely had to have sex with men. It doesn't even matter what gender you are, the 'bi' part of it would have to include males. I thought about being gay for a while, but decided god just might smite me for it... Pascals gay wager? Now that's funny

And that post was also well written Arcanus, thank you.

Well, drugs to do and songs to write,
Thanks all,
-Pip

(March 13, 2010 at 6:32 am)Arcanus Wrote: Judging by the answers given thus far, it seems I get to treat you with answers that are unique.

I'm going to resist the bait (your claim that multiple deities exist) and answer the question you're really asking. Christianity is the only religion in the entire world whose afterlife is based on grace; i.e., every single other religion on the planet teaches an afterlife that is reached by some kind of balance of good works. Christianity is singularly unique in that salvation (afterlife) is NOT based on any human good works at all, period. It is based on the good works of Jesus Christ, in whom alone the believer is saved. This is because "a balance of good works" is precisely that, a balance, meaning that in addition there are bad works, violations of God's law. In human courts, a person found guilty of breaking several criminal laws is never told by the judge, "Well, aside from these laws you have broken you're an otherwise pretty decent fellow. You may go. No sentence for you." It would be unjust to not punish criminal acts. He may be a decent fellow, but he is nevertheless guilty of having broken several criminal laws, and justice demands that crime is punished. On what grounds, then, would a person think God would leave sins unpunished? That would be unjust.

You came to the conclusion that the correct religion in the world consists of a God with a one size fits all plan for salvation? One that simply judges a book by its cover?

How did you reach the conclusion that other religions were wrong in this aspect?

(March 13, 2010 at 6:32 am)Arcanus Wrote: So I am confronted with two scenarios:

(1) If my religion is wrong, then it does not matter because I'll be okay on a balance of good works in whatever other religion turns out to be true. Buddhism. Wicca. Islam. Hinduism. Judaism. My life will not have been a waste, because of that balance of good works. My beliefs may have been wrong all along but (i) they were the guiding principle that led to those good works and (ii) in the afterlife it won't ultimately matter anyway. Whether it's reincarnation, attaining enlightenment, the judgment seat of Allah, etc., it all comes down to an overall balance of good works in the end.

Not so fast there.

Allah doesn't take kindly to false believers. "Fine" wouldn't exactly cover it, according to the Qur'an:

Qur'an (40:71-72) - When the fetters and the chains shall be on their necks; they shall be dragged Into boiling water, then in the fire shall they be burned

Qur'an (22:19-21) - But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads; Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron

Qur'an (4:56) - Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise

Qur'an (56:92-94) - But if he is of the rejecters, the erring, then the welcome will be boiling water and roasting at hell-fire

(March 13, 2010 at 6:32 am)Arcanus Wrote: (2) If my religion is right, then I'll be saved by God's grace in Christ's righteousness irrespective of my works, for salvation is by his merits alone who took upon himself the punishment my sins were due. And anyone who was banking on a balance of good works will have to confront the punishment their law-breaking is due, which no amount of good works can hide. As our own justice systems recognize, to not punish law-breaking is unjust. And the God they'll face is perfectly just.

Peachy.

Welp, I guess I'm fucked.

You also ruled out the possibility that God isn't real and you wasted valuable time in life praying to an imaginary friend. It's pretty irrelevant, as you'll be too dead to care. In retrospect it's kind of a drag though :/

(March 13, 2010 at 6:32 am)Arcanus Wrote: Consequently: it wouldn't matter if my religion is wrong, but it sure matters if it's right. As C.S. Lewis said, it is of no importance if Christianity turns out to be false, but of infinite importance if it turns out to be true.

No importance to whom? It would be pretty hilarious if Christianity turned out to be correct, but only a select denomination got into heaven. Oh well, I'll send you a postcard from hell, if it doesn't melt first.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:32 am)Arcanus Wrote: First of all, five billion years of being in heaven will not have even begun to scratch the surface of my praising and enjoying my Savior. Secondly, I have no reason to think that we'll even register the passage of time in heaven, given the descriptions of it we do have; i.e., "five billion years" will be a meaningless expression. Either way, eternity could never exhaust my love for Jesus Christ.

The summa theology says if you die a martyr or monk, you get special crowns in heaven.

Sa-weeet.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:32 am)Arcanus Wrote: That is called the Complex Question fallacy. "Who created the Creator?" is a complex of two separate questions: (1) "Is the Creator himself created?" (2) "If so, who created him?" Asking who created the Creator presupposes that he was created at all, in the same way that "Have you stopped beating your spouse?" presupposes you were beating her at all. And it is a fallacy because it requires the Christian to implicitly concede that God even had a creator, which begs that first question. So, "Is the Creator himself created?" No, because he is eternal. To ask about the origin of something that has no origin is a meaningless question; and if not created, then to ask who created him is twice meaningless.

Definitely agree. It's a loaded question.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:32 am)Arcanus Wrote: And if you want to suggest that the universe had no beginning, I would direct your attention to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which vindicated the Hawking-Penrose theorems by proving that any universe which on average is in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. "With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe," writes Alex Vilenkin. "There is no escape; they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes, Hill & Wang, 2006). As their work shows, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to Planck time (such as the Gott-Li model and its "adapted Rindler vacuum").

God of the gaps! I love this one! I think Bill Craig uses this one as one of his strongest points.

Here's the paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

Let's see what Guth says about this very subject:

http://www.onpointradio.org/2007/05/forg...ang-theory

“I think the challenge we’re raising is that the usual picture of the Big Bang is based on an assumption which is that time, space, matter, energy, everything began at the Big Bang. And that assumption was made in the 60s when people got the first strong observational evidence that the Big Bang happened. But it’s really just an assumption and our point of view has come out of new development in physics which are enabling us to describe the behaviour of matter in very extreme conditions such as were present around the Bang. And what we’re seeing is that the Big Bang doesn’t have to be the beginning of time. It’s perfectly possible that the Big Bang was just a violent event in a pre-existing universe.” Neil Turok

… What we call the Big Bang was almost certainly not the actual origin of time in either of the theories that we’re talking about. … The main difference I think [between the inflationary theory and Neil and Paul's theory] is the answer to the question of what is it that made the universe large and smooth everything out. … The inflationary version of cosmology is not cyclic. … It goes on literally forever with new universes being created in other places. The inflationary prediction is that our region of the universe would become ultimately empty and void but meanwhile other universes would srput out in other places in this multiverse. ” Alan Guth

The hypothesis is incomplete and still in development. It's a bit dishonest to latch it onto the kalam argument, then make the point that because some scientists believe that the universe had a singularity or beginning, it must have been God.

Even granting all of these theories are true, it would not prove, in any context, that a God created the universe, much less a sentient, omnibenevolent being. If the cause argument did stand (as there isn't any evidence that it would), it still would only paint the picture that whatever caused the universe to exist would have to be timeless. That's the only conclusion you could come up with. Anything having to do with intent and attributes would be purely speculative.

In very simple terms, you're putting an extra factor in the equation that would necessarily be more complex than the sum of the original factors.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:32 am)Arcanus Wrote: He doesn't. Ever.

Tell that to the kids that were fucked by Catholic priests, or is it fine if they truly accept Jesus?

Where's the OT divine justice? I think God's getting soft.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:32 am)Arcanus Wrote: Because I love God, and because I think it is morally wrong.

Nice. I don't believe in God and think it's morally wrong. I'll just latch on to whatever you think is right cause you have absolutes to abide by.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:32 am)Arcanus Wrote: You can, if you want. But I think that would qualify as a delusion, a view contradicted by an extraordinary degree of evidence to the contrary.

Ok, I'll play along. What is your evidence that someone created the world?

(March 13, 2010 at 6:32 am)Arcanus Wrote: Are you aware of how many times that very prediction has been made?

And the more time passes, the more the prediction rings true. Mankind is becoming more secular by the minute.

(March 13, 2010 at 6:32 am)Arcanus Wrote: It sure beats the brainless twaddle you subscribe to. Err, in my opinion. Don't want to offend you. (Did you catch the hint being made there?)

What you did. It's there, and I see it.

---

(March 13, 2010 at 6:32 am)Arcanus Wrote: Bad sex usually isn't terribly memorable.

It's only gay if the balls touch. Or you make eye contact. Or if you love them.

..I think.

(March 14, 2010 at 2:54 am)tavarish Wrote: [So you believe in] a God with a one-size-fits-all plan for salvation? One that simply judges a book by its cover?

Since this is a crude caricature that doesn't reflect what I actually believe, there is nothing here for me to respond to. I have zero interest in answering for beliefs I don't have.

(March 14, 2010 at 2:54 am)tavarish Wrote: Not so fast there.

The Quranic passages you cited address unbelievers (Kafir) and therefore don't apply to me, since according to Islam I'm included among the "People of the Book" (and therefore Al-Muttaqun, the pious).

"[Those] of the Scripture stand for the right. They recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer; they believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Maruf [that which Allah considers good] and forbid Al-Munkar [that which Allah considers bad]; and they hasten in all good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are Al-Muttaqun [the pious]" (3:113-115).

"And there are certainly among the people of the Scripture, Jews and Christians, those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verses of God for a little price; for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely God is Swift in account" (3:199).

"Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord. On them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve" (2:62).

Those alarming verses about disbelievers, rejecters, Kafir? That's people like atheists, among others. As I said, even if my religion is wrong I'll be all right, given the balance of good works—even under Islam, for I'm Ahl al-Kitab, among the righteous who believe in God, enjoin Al-Maruf, etc., and shall have my reward with my Lord.

(March 14, 2010 at 2:54 am)tavarish Wrote: You also ruled out the possibility that God isn't real and you wasted valuable time in life praying to an imaginary friend.

Wrong. I addressed that. "My life will not have been a waste, because ... [even if my beliefs were wrong] (i) they were the guiding principle that led to those good works and (ii) in the afterlife it won't ultimately matter anyway." Maybe you think it would be "kind of a drag" but, frankly, what does that have to do with me?

(March 14, 2010 at 2:54 am)tavarish Wrote: [If Christianity turns out to be false, it is of] No importance to whom?

Anyone. If Christianity is false, will that be of importance to the Atheist who dies? The Wiccan? The Muslim? The Buddhist? The Hindu? Nope. If Christianity is false, will that be of importance to the Christian who dies? Nope, for they lose nothing. If any other religion is true, they enter the afterlife on a balance of good works. If atheism is true, they decompose in their grave, having lived a life of good works on balance.

It is of no importance if Christianity turns out to be false, but of infinite importance if it turns out to be true.

(March 14, 2010 at 2:54 am)tavarish Wrote: Even granting all of these theories are true, it would not prove, in any context, that a God created the universe ...

Irrelevant to the point I was making, which had nothing to do with identifying God as the creator of the universe. It never ceases to amaze me, the keystrokes some atheists here will waste raising objections to things no one said (like "putting an extra factor in the equation" when nobody in the conversation did any such thing).

Nothing like a glorified Pascal's wager to start my day...

(March 14, 2010 at 10:37 am)Synackaon Wrote: Nothing like a glorified Pascal's wager to start my day...

It's not Pascal's wager, for it's not an argument to believe. It's an answer for why it wouldn't matter if my religion (Christianity) is wrong.

(March 14, 2010 at 10:23 am)Arcanus Wrote: Since this is a crude caricature that doesn't reflect what I actually believe, there is nothing here for me to respond to. I have zero interest in answering for beliefs I don't have.

You said Christianity is based on belief and grace rather than actions in life. I was addressing that. The only characteristic that God would consider is your belief in him. Would that be a fair assessment?

(March 14, 2010 at 10:23 am)Arcanus Wrote: The Quranic passages you cited address unbelievers (Kafir) and therefore don't apply to me, since according to Islam I'm included among the "People of the Book" (and therefore Al-Muttaqun, the pious).

"[Those] of the Scripture stand for the right. They recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer; they believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Maruf [that which Allah considers good] and forbid Al-Munkar [that which Allah considers bad]; and they hasten in all good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are Al-Muttaqun [the pious]" (3:113-115).

"And there are certainly among the people of the Scripture, Jews and Christians, those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verses of God for a little price; for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely God is Swift in account" (3:199).

"Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord. On them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve" (2:62).

Those alarming verses about disbelievers, rejecters, Kafir? That's people like atheists, among others. As I said, even if my religion is wrong I'll be all right, given the balance of good works—even under Islam, for I'm Ahl al-Kitab, among the righteous who believe in God, enjoin Al-Maruf, etc., and shall have my reward with my Lord.

Yes, they do address the kufar (kafir), or infidels. Islam also has choice words for Christians:

"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).

"Oh People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say of God anything but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in God and His messengers. Say not, 'Trinity.' Desist! It will be better for you, for God is One God, Glory be to Him! (Far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs" (4:171).

Koran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"


...and some more gems:

Koran 5:51
Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrong-doers.

Koran 9:29
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last day, nor hold the forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jiziyah with willing submission. And feel themselves subdued.

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good)] (Al `Imran: 85).

Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah

Koran 5:10
As for those who disbelieve and deny Our revelations, they are the heirs of Hell.


People of the Book refer to Christians and Jews, as you pointed out.

Clearly a religion of peace and tolerance.

(March 14, 2010 at 10:23 am)Arcanus Wrote: Wrong. I addressed that. "My life will not have been a waste, because ... [even if my beliefs were wrong] (i) they were the guiding principle that led to those good works and (ii) in the afterlife it won't ultimately matter anyway." Maybe you think it would be "kind of a drag" but, frankly, what does that have to do with me?

Ultimately, no one's life matters. I personally wouldn't want to spend time entertaining a delusion because it makes me feel fuzzy inside. It's also a good thing that there is no evidence to support the claim that God, much less Christian God exists.

Grain of salt, take it.

If religion helps you be a better person, then be all that you can be.

(March 14, 2010 at 10:23 am)Arcanus Wrote: Anyone. If Christianity is false, will that be of importance to the Atheist who dies? The Wiccan? The Muslim? The Buddhist? The Hindu? Nope. If Christianity is false, will that be of importance to the Christian who dies? Nope, for they lose nothing. If any other religion is true, they enter the afterlife on a balance of good works. If atheism is true, they decompose in their grave, having lived a life of good works on balance.

I'm going to start my own religion, I'm tired of paying taxes every year and don't like the uncertainty of going to hell for eating ham or the wrong day.

(March 14, 2010 at 10:23 am)Arcanus Wrote: It is of no importance if Christianity turns out to be false, but of infinite importance if it turns out to be true.

What if Zeus turned out to be real? Ho-lee shit.

(March 14, 2010 at 10:23 am)Arcanus Wrote: Irrelevant to the point I was making, which had nothing to do with identifying God as the creator of the universe. It never ceases to amaze me, the keystrokes some atheists here will waste raising objections to things no one said (like "putting an extra factor in the equation" when nobody in the conversation did any such thing).

You were making the point that the universe somehow had a beginning by citing the BGV paper that's so frequently used by William Lane Craig. Perhaps I was reading too far into your posts, but what exactly were you trying to say with that statement?