(October 9, 2015 at 1:34 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Careful, or you'll fall into infinite regression. If everything has to have a reason to exist, then using Gaud as the reason means that Gaud also has to have a reason to exist, and Gaud's creator must have a reason to exist, and so on. If everything but Gaud has to have a reason to exist, your argument is a special pleading fallacy and it ends right there.
Everything that every came into existence needs a reason to exist but God never came into existence He always was and is and always will be.
Quote:If Gaud knew in advance that I would disobey him and would wind up burning in Hell, and he could have prevented this by not creating me, and he created me anyway, then he is personally responsible for both my disobedience and my damnation because all he had to do to prevent those things was leave me out of existence and put some other poor schmuck's soul in my body. In short, yes, Gaud makes people disobey him because he creates them knowing they will disobey. Gaud's advance knowledge of all future events eliminates virtually any possibility of free will.
He does know everything and your individual existence has consequences beyond yourself and God know that as well. You are a part of God's plan regardless of your choice. Also Your choice to sin implies that you have an option to give your life over to God and obey Him.
Quote:If by "all creation" you mean the Universe, then no, the evidence does not support the Bible, or the existence of any of man's gods, for that matter. The evidence on Earth alone proves that various stories in the Bible are demonstrably false, and it only gets worse the more we learn. Geology proves there was no Flood. Archaeology proves there was no Exodus. Biology, geology, radiology, and a whole mess of other fields prove that the creation story is just wrong, and that Earth is much older than the Bible says it is.
No one is neutral and we all have the same evidence and come to different conclusions based on our presuppositions. There is evidence for God but your presuppositions reject it in favor of what you declare is correct.
Quote:So are you a covenant theologist or a dispensationalist? Do you even know what those things mean?
I vaguely remember hearing dispensationalist but not covenant theology. I am aware of the trains of thoughts though. I like to follow God and trust that He will guide me. I also listen to a wide range of Christ followers. Those who are excited about loving God, glorifying Him and stick to the bible are the people I listen to.
Quote:You're claiming that I'm out of context, but you're not describing how I'm out of context or even what the context is, or how that's even relevant to the discussion. Your claim is that sinful behavior is harmful, and I pointed out several behaviors that are named in the Bible as sins but that aren't harmful in and of themselves. Regardless of the context of the rules themselves, these things are named as sins by the law, and they're not inherently harmful behaviors, so your claim is no good. Jumping into an argument about context is nothing but a smoke screen. If sin is inherently harmful, why aren't all sins from both Testaments actually harmful to the self or someone else?
I have addressed this before. You didn't believe me then so why would your now? Are you honestly seeking an answer or are you just testing my knowledge?
Quote:The world isn't broken because it wasn't designed, moron. To be broken, something has to have an intended purpose that it isn't meeting because it isn't functioning properly. Because the world has neither an intended purpose nor a proper function, it can't be broken in that sense.
(You should have more respect for yourself.) If there is no proper or intended function to the world then all your previous evaluations on everything I have said thus fare are null and void. Humans evaluations on what is healthy and sick is arbitrary. There is no good or bad/ right or wrong.
Quote:Your beliefs are factually incorrect, so in that sense at least they are wrong. They also inspire you to go around telling people they're bad and they're going to hell just for not believing in something that deliberately and systematically hides all empirical evidence of itself, which is wrong in the sense that it makes you a bigot and a cretin.
You have just said that there is no intended purpose nor a proper function to the world. Therefore according to your world view there is no incorrect because that would require a proper way of doing things. In order for you to actually be able to make the claim of right or wrong there has to be a real standard by which to evaluate my world view.
Quote:Even if that were true, it only makes it more curious that you do believe in Gaud.
Because He is real and gives purpose to life and all things. He also gives you a standard by which you can judge anything.
