(October 11, 2015 at 1:01 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Let's suppose that everything that begins to exist has to have a reason to do so. You're now saying that Gaud didn't have to begin to exist. If that's true, that means it's possible for things to exist without having to begin existing. If that's true, it means that some form of material reality may have always existed, and is just constantly changing forms. Because it never "began" as such, it wouldn't need a reason to exist. If your Gaud is the only thing that has no beginning and therefore no reason, then you are once again guilty of Special Pleading, and your argument crumbles into the fallacy bin
You are making the assumption that 1) God is material (yes He can materialize or put on flesh but that doesn't make Him material) and 2) that there are material things that have not come into existence 3) that because it never began that it doesn't have a purpose
Quote:Not if every choice I make is predestined and predetermined, which it would have to be if Gaud has foreknowledge of it. Because I have no choice in whether I exist, and because none of my choices can change the predetermined unfolding of my existence, I effectively don't have free will according to your narrative. If Gaud is omniscient, then free will is impossible.
God foreknowledge is not coercion. God is totally different than we are and is also outside of time. Even though you have free will He can plainly see what you will and will not do. You are not a puzzle to God He made you and understands everything about you. He knows what will harm you and seeks your good. He will not force you to love Him and hell is a mixture of giving you the desire to be away from Him and removing sin from the earth. Still you have a choice and your lack of understanding about His foreknowledge will not be an excuse when He does judge.
Quote:No. Theists and theistic groups are notorious for misconstruing, ignoring, and fabricating evidence to support those claims, and for presenting arguments rather than actual evidence (which is basically all you've done here). We're not looking honestly at the same evidence, and you're treating things as evidence that aren't, really.
All people are notorious for misconstruing, ignoring and fabricating evidence to support their claims. People will also look at the evidence and their presuppositions will cause them to come to a conclusion that is in their favor. We are all looking at the same evidence and it is only God who will be able to bring you to the truth.
Quote:Dispensationalism is the idea that Gaud only imparts information and morals on a level that humanity is able to understand and cope with. Covenant theology is the idea that relevant rules and morals evolve/are adjusted as Gaud makes new covenants with man throughout the Babble.
Dispensationalism fails as a model because ...
Covenant theology fails because ...
Those who love God don't always get it right. We have recognized that and we understand that only through God can we be perfected. God is the ultimate authority and He can get His point across even if we don't know how he has done it. I don't identify with either and to be honest I really don't care. I also think you are misrepresenting the two trains of thought but if you want to continue this argument you might want to find someone who care to speak on it.
Quote:If you addressed this before, I either didn't notice or wasn't aware of it. As far as I know I haven't asked you this before. At any rate, do you have an answer or not? Why are seemingly harmless behaviors named as sins if Gaud is only trying to dissuade us from harmful actions?
Yes I do.
They are about remaining separate from the other cultures around them.
The question is why would a woman be in men's clothes or vice versa?(Deut 22:5) Not because he or she doesn't have anything to wear but to pose as the other sex. That would be lying and fall under don't lie. (Lev. 19:11) It would also be a violation of God's gender roles, it causes confusion, and can disrupt the family. Also the male and female speak to the nature of God. (Gen 1:27)
No mixture of linen and wool (deut 22:11) is about being Holy and separate.(lev 20:26) Sheep and Goats (Matt 25:31-46) or the Godly and Ungodly or don't be unequally yoked.(2 Corinthians 6:14) That is why even above the verse with the no mixing of wool and linen it speaks about not yoking a donkey with an ox. (duet 22:10)
The shrimp was an unclean animal. (Lev 20:25) God has the right and authority to claim what is unclean and what is clean. (Act 10:15) Do not take in that which is unclean, thoughts, actions ect. it is a reminder of not brining into Israel the beliefs and behaviors of those outside of God's people. (Mat 15:11)
So all of these are pointing to bigger issues that govern the society of Israel.
You never answered my question. Do you really want to know or are you just testing my knowledge?
Quote:Ok, we really have been over this part. Just because the Universe doesn't have inherent forces called "good" and "evil" that fight each other constantly, doesn't mean humans haven't invented ideas like "good" and "bad" to categorize the things they experience that they do and don't like, respectively. All this Gaud business is really just an attempt at passing one's personal, unsupported opinions off as proven metaphysical truths.
If good and evil is invented by people then it is still arbitrary and meaningless. In your world view people come from a meaningless system so they inherent no meaning. There thoughts and action would also be meaningless. A meaningless thing does not dictate is meaning because it has no source in which to create meaning.
Quote:As for me respecting myself, I treat people with exactly as much respect as they earn.
Respect is like love. The amount that is given out is not based on who respect is given to but who is giving the respect. A lack of respect comes from a disrespectful person.
Quote:Man, you Gaud people love to muddy up language and definitions. Even though there's no metaphysical meaning to anything, facts still exist, and it's possible to hold beliefs that are contrary to those facts, and if you do then your beliefs are factually incorrect. Not incorrect in the sense that you're doing the wrong thing for believing them, but incorrect in the sense that you simply believe wrong things.
No "purpose or function to the world" means that it can function in any way and that would not be incorrect. You need to interpret the fact to see wither it is correct or incorrect by using your perception. You are now moving past facts and into interpretation of reality and if there is no proper functions then any evaluation of the facts would just be arbitrary.
Quote:Gaud does not meet even the lowest standard of evidence. There is no reason to believe he exists.
God meets every standard and more. He has to exist to even give your statement any meaning otherwise it would just be a person who is meaningless saying meaningless words about a meaningless world.
