The Problem with Christians

[abaris]

What is the point of prayer? That's like asking, "what's the point of conversation? Why bother talking to people?

People actually talk back, you know. Hearing voices in your head doesn't exactly qualify as conversation.

[AJW333]

There are limitations on our free will already. Can I levitate objects with my mind? Can I see the infrared spectrum? 

Certainly, your god could have designed physical barriers to sin, in which we could have all the will in the world to do something and yet it is not physically possible to do it. This would represent no more a violation of free will than my inability to breathe in space even though my will may be to breathe in space. It is clear your god chose not to do this, and by necessity, it must have been because he intended these things to be possible.

In my understanding, free will without the possibility of carrying out the will is no free will at all.

---

For you? I doubt there is any evidence that will satisfy you. What could I possibly write that you wouldn't accuse me of making up or lying about?

So try me with scientific evidence. You claim to have a science degree. You should know how to take it from there.

If the supernatural operates outside the laws of science, how can I prove it with science?

---

Exactly. Crying off with "you won't accept my evidence" is arrogant presumption and not your call to make, AJ. If you're concerned that your evidence might not stand up to examination, it's nobody's problem but yours. Get better evidence.

Check my post just previous to this one. By its very nature, the supernatural defies scientific explanation. It's like saying, "I demand you use this system to prove something that operates outside this system." How do we do that?

[Ryantology]

In my understanding, free will without the possibility of carrying out the will is no free will at all.

Then, you can't plausibly say we have free will since there are countless ways in which one will find that the universe prohibits the expression of free will. God could have made rape as impossible as breathing ocean water.

The only other explanation is that God was not capable of achieving this, and that there are rules greater than God (which necessarily negates the concept of God as Christians imagine him).

[God of Mr. Hanky]

God, according to your definition is omniscient and omnipotent. So the above is shit. This is what it's actually is. As it always is when things get uncomfortable.



By the way, in case you missed it, what's your proof for the supernatural existing?

If God used his omnipotence to thwart all acts of evil, then freewill ceases to exist. That won't happen because God has guaranteed free will.

Concerning proof of supernatural, I doubt there is anything I could write that you would believe. I'd be wasting my time trying.

---

Could have

If god is so great, doesn't he want his creations to be the best?

If god is as powerful as he is, he can absolutely thwart evil.  In fact, that would be the precise act of any god.  I suppose we create super heroes to thwart the evil that the creation of god could not accomplish.

I want my children to be the best they can be but do I micromanage their lives for them? That would be a nightmare! Especially since they are adults with their own children.

When the end of the world comes, God will put a stop to all evil, until then, we will see more and more of it, just as the Bible predicted.

---

Perhaps someone should contact the accreditation folks and tell them that a university let one of theirs got away with a degree in science and a failure to understand the difference between tentatively accepting something as "most plausible" and a faith-decree. If you truly can't understand what "I believe this only to the degree it has been proven" means, then you're not a scientist, no matter what your degree says.

In my brief time at this forum, I have been asked over and over again to prove the supernatural, and been derided for not providing an "acceptable" proof. When I ask for proof of abiogenesis, I see a completely different standard being applied. You accept abiogenesis on the basis that it is "most plausible," with no proof whatsoever. How is that a more credible position than me accepting the supernatural as "most plausible" on the basis of both personal experience and the worldwide, centuries old existence of countless testimonies? At least there are hundreds of thousands of people claiming to have witnessed the supernatural and yet not one who has witnessed abiogenesis.

---

This liar does not have a science degree unless he found one in a cereal box.

Put up or shut up. $10,0000 says I do.

---

My money is on christian college. About as helpful as used toiled paper in the real world.

UNSW. Inside the top 50 in the world. Check it out.

Doesn't matter whether you do, but the embarassment of of you spouting sub-grade-school level ignorance would surely knock down a peg any university which gave you a relevant science degree. Fuck off, you lying cunt!

[AJW333]

Show us some real evidence, AJ, or stop wasting our time with your bullshit already!

This is not the place for theist apologetics, where bullshit is your bread and butter - one thing science will not tolerate is bullshit.

This site really needs a feature for throwing virtual bricks at lying assholes like you - your garbage is that disgusting and shameful! Nobody with a science degree makes your nebulous claim to "a science degree", and then prattles on to reveal all the scientific understanding of a 3rd grade student. Lies are the bread and butter of theistic apologetics, but that isn't called for here, and one thing science will not tolerate is dishonesty. Now you're down to spewing nonsense from your magic book - between that and the squalling of a two-year-old, the two-year-old makes better sense.

You need to show us the evidence, or fold already - put up or shut up!

What have I lied about? Sure, I have opposing opinions and I believe that I have experienced the supernatural, but how is that a lie?

[Cyberman]

Exactly. Crying off with "you won't accept my evidence" is arrogant presumption and not your call to make, AJ. If you're concerned that your evidence might not stand up to examination, it's nobody's problem but yours. Get better evidence.

Check my post just previous to this one. By its very nature, the supernatural defies scientific explanation. It's like saying, "I demand you use this system to prove something that operates outside this system." How do we do that?

By examining and eliminating every other possibility first. As you have a science degree, you already know that. But that isn't even what I wrote. You're the one claiming to have evidence. Present it for examination, or face the sharp end of Hitchens' Razor.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Show us some real evidence, AJ, or stop wasting our time with your bullshit already!

This is not the place for theist apologetics, where bullshit is your bread and butter - one thing science will not tolerate is bullshit.

This site really needs a feature for throwing virtual bricks at lying assholes like you - your garbage is that disgusting and shameful! Nobody with a science degree makes your nebulous claim to "a science degree", and then prattles on to reveal all the scientific understanding of a 3rd grade student. Lies are the bread and butter of theistic apologetics, but that isn't called for here, and one thing science will not tolerate is dishonesty. Now you're down to spewing nonsense from your magic book - between that and the squalling of a two-year-old, the two-year-old makes better sense.

You need to show us the evidence, or fold already - put up or shut up!

What have I lied about? Sure, I have opposing opinions and I believe that I have experienced the supernatural, but how is that a lie?

[AJW333]

When the earth was formed, it would have consisted simply of dirt, rocks and water. What else was there to create life with?

Or how about that?



As usual in such things, you prove not to know the science involved. I didn't know either, but I looked it up, since what I knew was sufficient to call bullshit on your simplistic model.

So how did DNA first form?

---

When the earth was formed, it would have consisted simply of dirt, rocks and water. What else was there to create life with?

Please tell me you're not serious..?

---

Or how about that?



As usual in such things, you prove not to know the science involved. I didn't know either, but I looked it up, since what I knew was sufficient to call bullshit on your simplistic model.

So how did DNA first form?

---

Please tell me you're not serious..?

What else was there?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

So how did DNA first form?

If you want a scientific answer to this, then you should first provide a scientific explanation to how your god formed.

Not knowing the answer to everything an admitting it means you know infinitely more than any asshole who spouts metaphysical "answers".

[abaris]

So how did DNA first form?

You're the only one here being uncomfortable with we don't know, caveman. You're the one in need of filling the gaps with your personal choice of woo without presenting anything else than appeals to the supernatural. Which, of course, you can't prove.