(February 23, 2014 at 7:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(February 22, 2014 at 3:19 pm)discipulus Wrote: If empiricists hold to a proposition which states that we should only take a proposition to be true if it can be scientifically proven, then their view is self-refuting, no?
The proposition: "We should only take a proposition to be true if it can be scientifically proven", cannot be scientifically proven, and thus, fails to meet its own criteria.
An awesome post by descipulus
Drivel speak is not awesome. I'd literally rather shoot myself in the foot than play word gymnastics with that guy
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
![[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]](https://66.media.tumblr.com/5fb74c6d16622fb3dbb358509c9aec03/tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif)
Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
Quote:Some people deserve hell.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
