Why would God?

[truthBtold]

I didnt say everything...... I said god. About the firsthand account, are u talking about the gospels? There is none.

Actually, I was thinking of Emmanuel Swedenborg. But treat it as a thought problem. If a close personal friend of yours had a visionary experience, i.e. a personal revelation of God, and there were no evidence that they had used drugs or had previous or on-going mental illness, would you at least take them at their word?

Honestly no. And my sister had one and I wasn't rude, I give respect to peoples personal experiences. But when they want my thought on the matter I have to say I tell them (not rudely) that no proof has been given for the supernatural.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Chad...what is this non-physical "stuff" that you keep referring to?

Non-physical stuff is that which gives form to primal matter. Primal matter is the formless ground of being.

And why do you keep running around shifting your burden on everyone else to disprove this "stuff"?

Saying that consciousness emerges is a positive claim. Saying that consciousness can be reduced to physical processes is a positive claim. Saying that consciousness evolved is a positive claim. Saying that evolutionary imperatives are the basis of morality is a positive claim. There is nothing dishonest about pointing out the shortcoming of these claims.

Here's the thread and post where it was last left unanswered.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-22939-page-7.html
[/quote]Sorry, I dropped off that thread because the princess formerly known as apophenia had resorted to vulgarity and insult which I find boring and unworthy of response.

...what exactly this non physical stuff is? ... Can you describe the nature of this non physical stuff and how could think apart from its physical vessel?

First off, I didn't say non-physical "stuff" could think without reference to physicality. That's a whole different question. If you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest you join my thread titled "The Category Error of Scientism" in the philosophy section.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Actually, I was thinking of Emmanuel Swedenborg. But treat it as a thought problem. If a close personal friend of yours had a visionary experience, i.e. a personal revelation of God, and there were no evidence that they had used drugs or had previous or on-going mental illness, would you at least take them at their word?

Honestly no. And my sister had one and I wasn't rude, I give respect to peoples personal experiences. But when they want my thought on the matter I have to say I tell them (not rudely) that no proof has been given for the supernatural.

So the testimony of a reliable witness is not considered evidence? I'd like to see you try justifying that one in a court of law.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Chad...what is this non-physical "stuff" that you keep referring to?

Non-physical stuff is that which gives form to primal matter. Primal matter is the formless ground of being.

How do you know that? An example please...

First off, I didn't say non-physical "stuff" could think without reference to physicality. That's a whole different question.

Only if you insist that there is a "stuff" in the first place, and if you do, it's gonna be a question you'll need to answer if you keep insisting that there exists some nonphysical "stuff" that gives rise to the acknowledgement and recognition of virtue.

If you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest you join my thread titled "The Category Error of Scientism" in the philosophy section.

Gladly, a link would have been easier! I'll find it.

[Drich]

Why would god make so many mistakes if he is the all powerful creator?

Just because God did not make something easy does not mean it was a mistake.

He made humans and everything and gave us all sin? Why?

Sin was a choice, God wanted us to be in a position to choose either to be with Him, or to be seperated from Him. Sin=The choice to be seperate from God.

He made all humans, so he made some gay. Why does he frown upon what he made?

God sees being Gay as any other sexual sin. It holds no more disdain than herto sexual sin. God made sex with a specific purpose and place in mind. That is within the confines of a santified marriage. The rest is sin just like anyother sin. As such we need to seek attonement for these sin no matter what our sin of choice happens to be. This command was not only made to those who struggle with homosexuality.

He knows all, so wouldn’t he know that we would torture and kill his “son”?

yes, that is exactly what Isaiah 53 is all about. (Old Testament prophesy for telling of Jesus' death)

He made humans so why did his son have to be born and not created?

To be born of woman was to redeem the sins of Adam and Eve. To create would mean to start anew. God used the broken or tainted line of Adam to redeem the descendants of Adam, which is also why Christ is sometimes referred to as the son of man.. The man here being Adam. The idea is the son of Adam will redeem his father.. Like like luke and vader, but a way way older version of it.

Why would god make the devil just to have fun taunting and tempting us?


Yea I think to much,but never understood these.

To help man see the alternative to being in God's expressed will. To show man sin. That way we know or understand something more than the will of God, thus giving us a second option to God's expressed will allowing for choice.

[truthBtold]

Honestly no. And my sister had one and I wasn't rude, I give respect to peoples personal experiences. But when they want my thought on the matter I have to say I tell them (not rudely) that no proof has been given for the supernatural.

So the testimony of a reliable witness is not considered evidence? I'd like to see you try justifying that one in a court of law.

In a court of law, people dont try to prove supernatural things..

[The Reality Salesman01]

When I read posts from Drich there's a sort of disgusting nostalgia that come over me. It takes me to a place in my believing life when I would have uttered the same kind of mind numbingly stupid shit without having a clue hoe deluded I was. It's kind of sad seeing somebody so dedicated to being a nut sack. Poor soul. It's like debating Santa with a teenager. How has he not figured it out yet? He must get some weird satisfaction from defending bankrupt positions. Where is jstrodel? I bet he's an Atheist now!

[Neo-Scholastic]

So the testimony of a reliable witness is not considered evidence? I'd like to see you try justifying that one in a court of law.

In a court of law, people dont try to prove supernatural things..

You have as much as admitted that you have a closed mind. You ask for evidence then dismiss it because it does not conform to your worldview.

[StoryBook]

So the testimony of a reliable witness is not considered evidence? I'd like to see you try justifying that one in a court of law.

How would you know that the witness is reliable?
"Reliable" is your opinion, not a fact. Last I knew opinions are not evidence.
So no it would not hold up in court.

[truthBtold]

In a court of law, people dont try to prove supernatural things..

You have as much as admitted that you have a closed mind. You ask for evidence then dismiss it because it does not conform to your worldview.

again.. evidence for supernatural. . Never in court.. I live on earth.. where u from?