God is necessary for all things to come into existence, but what would be the reason for your theoretical "other thing" to be there?
I see angels, heaven and hell as physical places and things. Still thinking about it now, angels may be immaterial. I haven't given much thought to what angels are made of. Still, I was saying that God is not subject to change. Now that I look back at your passed post that wasn't what you were speaking about so that is my mistake.
God has designed creation to work in certain ways (setting up physical and moral laws). Therefore, your compliance or rejection of these laws will affect you in certain ways. If you choose to jump off a building your body will be affected depending how prepared you are to land on the ground. Your relationship with a person you care about will be affected depending on the way you treat that person.
Not only that, it is impossible for God to ordain you to disobey Him (sin) because that would be a contradiction. He can't command you to disobey him because your disobedience would be obedience and that would negate itself.
Your statement would indicate that the science community does have people who misconstrue, ignore or fabricate evidence to support their claims; and if your statement is true some are found out.
Is it possible, in your mind, that some in the scientific community have erroneous presupposition that will impede the truth from coming out?
God, being all knowing, eternal and all good, means he does not fall in the same category as you or I do, so by what foundation are you claiming that God's laws are arbitrary, whimsical, or fanciful?
Also, how is this different from when you,follow the rules of a society, that as you say are "subjective"?
Also, according to your world view where it "neither [has] an intended purpose nor a proper function " all view points have the same merit. They don't have any worth because they are all man made. Your idea of my views is meaningless. People fight and kill for meaningless purposes. The death and life of a person is meaningless. Joy, Happiness, kindness, fun, anger none of it means anything. There is no meaning to life and nothing anyone comes up with will give it meaning.
So in your world view do people have the same amount of worth? If they do why don't you regard everyone with the same amount of respect? If they don't, how do you measure their worth?
Excuse me, but it doesn't seem that you are being consistent when You say that there is a correct or incorrect way. Base on your world view, you would be you labeling something based on made-up human standards. In your world view everything just is. So even if my statement doesn't follow it doesn't matter. Although, I recognize that my statement didn't follow so I apologize for the confusion.
The only meaning that does exist is metaphysical. Based on your world view, there just is and any interpretation of what is, is just arbitrary.
That is a interesting train of thought. If I don't understand then, I can't? Then how do people learn? Do only those who "innately" understand grasp a concept? If that is so why would it need to be explained? Why are you trying to convince me? Are only certain people able to understand certain things? If then who are, and too what criteria must they be made manifest by?
Quote:As for #1...so what now, you're asserting that material things need a beginning, but immaterial things don't? So what about all the other immaterial stuff (angels, heaven, hell, etc.)? Those didn't need to come into existence either, right? Oh, they did? So Gaud is also the only immaterial thing that doesn't need a beginning? Sooo...about that Special Pleading...
I see angels, heaven and hell as physical places and things. Still thinking about it now, angels may be immaterial. I haven't given much thought to what angels are made of. Still, I was saying that God is not subject to change. Now that I look back at your passed post that wasn't what you were speaking about so that is my mistake.
Quote:If Gaud knows the future, then the future is already written, and if the future is already written, then all the choices are already made and won't change. If that's true, there is no free will for humans. It's really quite simple.
It's like this: if I know in advance the exact fate of a being I'm creating, then the act of creation sets that being on that course irrevocably. The only person with the power to change it would be me, and the only ways to change it would be for me to either intervene and change one of those choices or forego the being's creation entirely. If Gaud has prior knowledge of everything in the Unvierse, then only Gaud has free will.
God has designed creation to work in certain ways (setting up physical and moral laws). Therefore, your compliance or rejection of these laws will affect you in certain ways. If you choose to jump off a building your body will be affected depending how prepared you are to land on the ground. Your relationship with a person you care about will be affected depending on the way you treat that person.
Not only that, it is impossible for God to ordain you to disobey Him (sin) because that would be a contradiction. He can't command you to disobey him because your disobedience would be obedience and that would negate itself.
Quote:Actually, no. The scientific community prizes academic honesty above all else and systematically ostracizes scientists who use dishonest means in an attempt to prove or disprove something. They're remarkably efficient on that front, actually.
Your statement would indicate that the science community does have people who misconstrue, ignore or fabricate evidence to support their claims; and if your statement is true some are found out.
Is it possible, in your mind, that some in the scientific community have erroneous presupposition that will impede the truth from coming out?
Quote:No, actually I was waiting to see how long it would be before you admitted that some of those rules have nothing to do with harm and everything to do with Gaud's arbitrary whims and fancies. Thanks for finally admitting that.Before I go further my I ask how do you know what is arbitrary? Is your definition based on an idea made up by humans?
God, being all knowing, eternal and all good, means he does not fall in the same category as you or I do, so by what foundation are you claiming that God's laws are arbitrary, whimsical, or fanciful?
Also, how is this different from when you,follow the rules of a society, that as you say are "subjective"?
Quote:Sooo...everything invented by people is arbitrary and meaningless? Shit...I guess Gaud must be arbitrary and meaningless, then. Couldn't agree more.
Also, according to your world view where it "neither [has] an intended purpose nor a proper function " all view points have the same merit. They don't have any worth because they are all man made. Your idea of my views is meaningless. People fight and kill for meaningless purposes. The death and life of a person is meaningless. Joy, Happiness, kindness, fun, anger none of it means anything. There is no meaning to life and nothing anyone comes up with will give it meaning.
Quote:I have no qualms about being disrespectful toward people who dis-earn my respect.
So in your world view do people have the same amount of worth? If they do why don't you regard everyone with the same amount of respect? If they don't, how do you measure their worth?
Quote:That does not follow at all.If there is no design (purpose) as to which it, the world, should act; and if there is no way it should perform (function) then there is no standard by which to say what is "correct" or "incorrect".
Excuse me, but it doesn't seem that you are being consistent when You say that there is a correct or incorrect way. Base on your world view, you would be you labeling something based on made-up human standards. In your world view everything just is. So even if my statement doesn't follow it doesn't matter. Although, I recognize that my statement didn't follow so I apologize for the confusion.
Quote:Lack of metaphysical purpose does not strip everything of all meaning, dipshit.
The only meaning that does exist is metaphysical. Based on your world view, there just is and any interpretation of what is, is just arbitrary.
Quote:If you really need me to explain why, you probably wouldn't understand if I tried.
That is a interesting train of thought. If I don't understand then, I can't? Then how do people learn? Do only those who "innately" understand grasp a concept? If that is so why would it need to be explained? Why are you trying to convince me? Are only certain people able to understand certain things? If then who are, and too what criteria must they be made manifest by?
