An argument against Adam and Eve

[The Grand Nudger]

How might one test this position?

[Faith No More]

You are trying to avoid what scriptures teach, there is a hell, there's no changing that, it is what it is.

I'm not avoiding what the scriptures teach, I am flat-out telling you they are false. The inconsistency of god being love and the concept of hell seems to allude you.

Saying 'it is what it is' gives me great insight into your critical thinking behind your belief system. And by critical thinking I mean lack thereof. You seem unable to justify your position so you just accept it as is.

[Cinjin]

It's sad that you are incapable of understanding the truths of scripture, someone has to show them where hell is, scripture says that hell is on the other side of an impassable abiss, so only by the omnipotent God could they get there.

Amazing the depth of your denial.

I point out that your bible clearly says that man is CAST into hell and therefore it is not self-imposed but rather a punishment.

And your response to this is that god isn't really "casting" people into hell - so much as showing them how to traverse the abyss so that they can be dropped in.

You are a piece of work!



Lucky me, god's not casting me into hell like the bible says he is .... he's merely my escort over the abyss so that I can .... I don't know, fall in on my own!?!

Self-proclaimed sheep says:
God loves me THIIIISSSSS much!

[fr0d0]

How might one test this position?

I asked you first

Me... I'd test it against a.n. respected other. Wether it was consistent with accepted knowledge. etc.

[Godscreated]

You are trying to avoid what scriptures teach, there is a hell, there's no changing that, it is what it is.

I'm not avoiding what the scriptures teach, I am flat-out telling you they are false. The inconsistency of god being love and the concept of hell seems to allude you.

Saying 'it is what it is' gives me great insight into your critical thinking behind your belief system. And by critical thinking I mean lack thereof. You seem unable to justify your position so you just accept it as is.

When I say it is what it is, I mean you can not wish away the truth, you do not want to face the reality of hell so you make up your own nonbelief story.

[Killman]

You are trying to avoid what scriptures teach, there is a hell, there's no changing that, it is what it is.

I'm not avoiding what the scriptures teach, I am flat-out telling you they are false. The inconsistency of god being love and the concept of hell seems to allude you.

Saying 'it is what it is' gives me great insight into your critical thinking behind your belief system. And by critical thinking I mean lack thereof. You seem unable to justify your position so you just accept it as is.

When I say it is what it is, I mean you can not wish away the truth, you do not want to face the reality of hell so you make up your own nonbelief story.

And you do not want to face the reality of death, so you make up your own belief story.

[Faith No More]

When I say it is what it is, I mean you can not wish away the truth, you do not want to face the reality of hell so you make up your own nonbelief story.

Don't you think that if I really didn't want to face the reality of hell that I would be down on my knees praying to your god? Hell is just one in a long line of fairy tales from your bible and is no more real than vampires.

I am, however, beginning to detect a hint of joy within you that relishes the idea of non-believers burning for eternity. You display no sympathy for those you condemn and state with cold, emotionless precision that they will be punished for their lack of belief. Does that help validate your beliefs, or are you just plain sadistic?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not up to me to define a test to validate your theory. It was a rhetorical question in any case (your theory has already been tested to fucking death, that's why we don't claim that the supernatural exists). Your position is one that you have assumed over the years to absolve yourself of any responsibility to prove it to be accurate. Not my problem. Don't get me wrong Frodo, I like your religion, but it's still bullshit until you have some sort of evidence to offer up.

Whats amusing, is that you seem unwilling to definitively point to areas where your bullshit world engaged the real world. You stand for nothing. You argue for the deists god, and call it Christ. Good luck with that.

"The result can only be physical, and the explanation physical"
Excellent, you've just ruled out miracles existence. There would be a natural explanation, there is not. Is this then evidence that the material did not interact with the immaterial with regards to miracles? Of course not, not to you. It's not important to you that your statements have any consistency whatsoever. Only that they end with the word God.

(GC, you're not going to let Frodo get away with stripping god of creation are you btw? Or is that one of those tiny differences that doesn't matter? He did it in this very thread no less. Pick up the banner buddy, defend your god against the heathens.)

By the way Frodo, things like Genesis were only metaphysical when they were proposed, in the last few thousand years, we've gained the ability to test them empirically. Genesis is not speaking to some immaterial truth, it is a very material flight of fancy. I understand that you very much want it to be something more, but that leaves you in the undesirable position of requiring at least one more assumption than I do. You have to assume they didn't mean exactly what they said. Evidence? You can't provide it I know, because of that wall in your mind that separates the two worlds. You put yourself in this position. I know you don't believe exactly that of course, since you insist that the two worlds can meet, but seem to be unable to point to a specific place or time where it did. The reasoning that you have decided to employ to win an argument, leaves you no room to verify your own proposition. Deliciously twisted process. When asked to provide evidence, you say there can be none,of course you have still drawn conclusions. Conclusions made in the absence of evidence are factually meaningless.

[fr0d0]

There's nothing more I can say.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is evidence of?

---

"Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence."

This has apparently been the definition of metaphysical since the 18th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Are we arguing something else? Is this not the "metaphysical" you're arguing for? Would this not exclude anything we have empirical data on? Like our origins? I appeal to the brute force of fact. Do you have anything to disagree with me on at all? Is there any point at which the body of evidence that I am referring to as fact is incorrect? At what point, do you feel, that we need to invoke god?