God created a weight so heavy that not even He could lift it
KingOfTheApes
weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
and eat a banana.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How to tell if people descend from the monkey: Give them a banana!
Then watch if they grab it like a monkey.
HotelCharlieOne
news:ae94550a-099c-48f6...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.co
m:
> "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> home now and eat a banana.
>
The other God paradox: God created a very intelligent creature in his
own image. Then, he spent so much time feeding bullshit about his own
greatness into this creature that the creature's brain was filled up
the the resulting creature was left stupid.... very stupid.
Braise the Lard
--
Al Gore did not invent the Internet;
he invented global warming.
~ bumper sticker
�People will do anything to save the world
� except take a course in science.�
Howard C. Hayden
Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn
duke
<comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>and eat a banana.
God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Mitchell Holman
@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>
>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>>and eat a banana.
>
> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
putting a bullet in the Pope.
Why is that?
Earle Jones
<ae94550a-099c-48f6...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
KingOfTheApes <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
*
As a mathematician, I tend to prefer the infinite series version:
"Can God create a weight so heavy that even He could not create
an even heavier weight?"
earle
*
J
"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are? Perhaps you
should work on a spiritual connection with Him and you'd find the answer for
yourself.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
J
"KingOfTheApes" <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ae94550a-099c-48f6...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
You must be speaking of Dale. No wonder, not even God couldn't lift her fat
ass.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Mitchell Holman
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
>> @4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>
>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>>>
>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>
>>
>>
>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>> putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>
>> Why is that?
>>
>>
>
>
> Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are?
Because you are not.
> Perhaps
> you should work on a spiritual connection with Him and you'd find the
> answer for yourself.
Why does the Pope need a bulletproof Popemobile?
Is God powerless to protect him?
Jimbo
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
>
>
>
>
>
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> > news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> > @4ax.com:
>
> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>and eat a banana.
>
> >> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> > And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> > putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> > Why is that?
>
> Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are?
Yeah, you might as well be asking the motivations of imaginary sky
pixies... Wait, same thing...
The Chief Instigator
Be thankful that she'd only punch you once...even you might learn something
from that experience, Junkie. (Of course, you will never be anywhere near
us, excepting your supposed Virginia residence eight years ago.)
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Grand Rapids 3, Houston 1 (October 30)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, November 1 at Texas, 5:05
duke
> Why is that?
Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody dies,
including Jesus the man.
duke
Vacant lot, you have no idea what you're trying to say.
Mitchell Holman
news:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>
>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>>>
>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
>> Why is that?
>
> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
> dies, including Jesus the man.
So why cannot God protect the Pope?
Jimbo
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 31, 6:13 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
>
> >> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> > news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >> > @4ax.com:
>
> >> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >> >>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >> >>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >> >>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >> >>>and eat a banana.
>
> >> >> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >> > And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >> > putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >> > Why is that?
>
> >> Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are?
>
> >Yeah, you might as well be asking the motivations of imaginary sky
> >pixies... Wait, same thing...
>
> Vacant lot,
Well, pedophile earl, I know exactly what I am talking about. You on
the other hand are a perverted piece of shit.
Don Martin
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>>
>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>>>>
>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>
>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>
>>> Why is that?
>>
>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
>> dies, including Jesus the man.
>
>
> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
God converted to Buddhism some centuries ago, and does not give a shit
about the Pope?
aa #2278 If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
The Chief Instigator
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
>>>
>>> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
>>> > news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
>>> > @4ax.com:
>>>
>>> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>> >>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>
>>> >>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>>> >>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>>> >>>and eat a banana.
>>>
>>> >> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>>
>>> > putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are?
>>
>>Yeah, you might as well be asking the motivations of imaginary sky
>>pixies... Wait, same thing...
>
> Vacant lot, you have no idea what you're trying to say.
He has a lot more ideas than you're capable of counting, Lying Cathoholic
Dook. (IMO, as always.)
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
>>@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>
>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>>>>and eat a banana.
>>>
>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
>> Why is that?
>
>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>And, most of all, everybody dies,
>including Jesus the man.
There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
duke
Nah, notown. Firstly, you have NO idea what you're talking about, and that's
evident. You see a demographics associated with a wasted city as indicative of
something other than a wasted city.
Secondly, you are just dying to insult me as though I were one like you. But it
doesn't work. I'm not into children as you are.
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>>
>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>>>>
>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>
>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>
>>> Why is that?
>>
>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
>> dies, including Jesus the man.
> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
I explained that to you above. And the suffering servant plays his part in
those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
duke
NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>>And, most of all, everybody dies,
>>including Jesus the man.
>There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:55:48 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:05:10 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
>>>>@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>>>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>>>>>>and eat a banana.
>>>>>
>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>>
>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>>
>>>> Why is that?
>
>>>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
>>Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>
>NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
You know that story is make-believe.
>>>And, most of all, everybody dies,
>>>including Jesus the man.
>
>>There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
>
>Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
You've been given enough chances to provide evidence. You know you don't
have any, so you make excuses for it.
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
Duke, you are once again confusing an explanation with an assertion.
Mitchell Holman
news:2isre5dhbidehbfs1...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>news:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
>>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
>>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>>>>>
>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>>
>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>>
>>>> Why is that?
>>>
>>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all,
>>> everybody dies, including Jesus the man.
>
>> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
>
> I explained that to you above.
Repeating your claim is not proof.
> And the suffering servant plays his
> part in those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
So the shooting of the Pope was all part
of the Divine Plan?
duke
Wrongo, little foolish boy, you are once again demonstrating your total lack of
comprehension of what God told us. Which is exactly why you are an atheist
wannabe.
Only the ignorant will wander down the path you do.
duke
Ok, here we have ignorant atheist wannabe #2.
>> And the suffering servant plays his
>> part in those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
> So the shooting of the Pope was all part
>of the Divine Plan?
It may turn out to be all the (un)truth you can handle.
duke
>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:42:43 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>alt.atheism:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:55:48 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:05:10 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
>>>>>@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>>>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>>>>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>>>>>>>and eat a banana.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>>>
>>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>>>
>>>>> Why is that?
>>
>>>>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
>>>Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>>
>>NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>
>You know that story is make-believe.
Well, maybe to you it is, like the tooth fairy.
>>>>And, most of all, everybody dies,
>>>>including Jesus the man.
>>
>>>There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
>>Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
>You've been given enough chances to provide evidence. You know you don't
>have any, so you make excuses for it.
I've only been doing that for the last 10 years or so. Where have you been?
Jimbo
Yes, pedophile earl, you are a perverted piece of shit.
Jimbo
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:55:48 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >alt.atheism:
>
> >>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >>>@4ax.com:
>
> >>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>>>and eat a banana.
>
> >>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>> Why is that?
> >>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
> >Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>
> NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>
> >>And, most of all, everybody dies,
> >>including Jesus the man.
> >There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
>
> Not in your dried-out brain,
Not in your moss covered, pedophile enabling brain either.
Jimbo
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:21:34 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >alt.atheism:
>
> >>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in> >>>> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>>>> Why is that?
>
> >>>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
> >>>> dies, including Jesus the man.
>
> >>> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
>
> >>I explained that to you above. And the suffering servant plays his part in
> >>those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
>
> >Duke, you are once again confusing an explanation with an assertion.
>
> Wrongo,
Nope, he is 100% right. You don't know the difference, pedophile
loving earl.
Jimbo
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:18:36 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in> >> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in> >>>> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>>>> Why is that?
>
> >>>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all,
> >>>> everybody dies, including Jesus the man.
>
> >>> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
>
> >> I explained that to you above.
>
> > Repeating your claim is not proof.
>
> Ok, here we have ignorant atheist wannabe #2.
>
> >> And the suffering servant plays his
> >> part in those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
> > So the shooting of the Pope was all part
> >of the Divine Plan?
>
> It may turn out to be all the (un)truth you can handle.
>
It is certainly more truth than you are able to provide, liar earl.
Jimbo
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:06:41 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>>alt.atheism:
>
> >>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >>>>>@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>>>>>and eat a banana.
>
> >>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>>>> Why is that?
>
> >>>>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
> >>>Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>
> >>NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>
> >You know that story is make-believe.
>
> Well, maybe to you it is, like the tooth fairy.
No, it is simply make believe.
>
> >>>>And, most of all, everybody dies,
> >>>>including Jesus the man.
>
> >>>There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
> >>Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
> >You've been given enough chances to provide evidence. You know you don't
> >have any, so you make excuses for it.
>
> I've only been doing that for the last 10 years or so.
What? Lying about providing evidence? You do that quite well.
tirebiter
> "KingOfTheApes" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ae94550a-099c-48f6...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> > weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> You must be speaking of Dale. No wonder, not even God couldn't lift her fat
> ass.
>
does your mythical god have to hide behind your skirts like this?
---
a.a. #2273
Free Lunch
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
<6chte5ds8e8o96c70...@4ax.com>:
Duke, you keep telling boring lies. I shall have to stop reading for a
while. You are not entertaining.
duke
You may find what I say boring, but it's no lie. When you come back, my story
will be the same.
duke
No, providing it, which I did.
duke
The Dukester, American-American
duke
When you return, the truth will still be waiting for you.
Yap
> "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
No wonder the earth is being showered with all the calamities.
We have been telling you religious nuts so !
>
> That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> and eat a banana.
>
> How to tell if people descend from the monkey: Give them a banana!
> Then watch if they grab it like a monkey.
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
Yap
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>
> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >and eat a banana.
>
Yap
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> @4ax.com:
>
> > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> > <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>and eat a banana.
>
> > God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> Why is that?
killed in tsunami?
Yap
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
>
>
>
>
>
> > news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> > @4ax.com:
>
> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>and eat a banana.
>
> >> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> > And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> > putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> > Why is that?
>
> should work on a spiritual connection with Him and you'd find the answer for
> yourself.
Please tell us that you have no answer.
Or simply inform us that your god weren't that great !
>
> --
> J Young
> Jvisi...@live.com
Yap
> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:38f2bp....@news.alt.net:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
> >> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >> @4ax.com:
>
> >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >> putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >> Why is that?
>
> > Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are?
>
>
> > Perhaps
> > you should work on a spiritual connection with Him and you'd find the
> > answer for yourself.
>
>
> Is God powerless to protect him?
It really means that there is no god.
Yap
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>and eat a banana.
>
> >> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
> > And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >putting a bullet in the Pope.
> > Why is that?
>
> including Jesus the man.
Ah, so you admit that Jesus was not a god after all.
You better seek cover, the loons will come with big stone.
Yap
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote innews:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> > <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>
> >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >> Why is that?
>
> > Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
> > dies, including Jesus the man.
>
There is no god, to protect any human.
Yap
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >news:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>
> >>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>> Why is that?
>
> >> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
> >> dies, including Jesus the man.
> > So why cannot God protect the Pope?
>
> those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
But, his hope for a protection from the sky pixie failed miserably.
Yap
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:55:48 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:05:10 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >alt.atheism:
>
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >>>@4ax.com:
>
> >>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>>>and eat a banana.
>
> >>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>> Why is that?
> >>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
>
> NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
Your lie is hereby caught red handed.
>
> >>And, most of all, everybody dies,
> >>including Jesus the man.
>
> Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
Yap
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:21:34 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >alt.atheism:
>
> >>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in> >>>> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>>>> Why is that?
>
> >>>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
> >>>> dies, including Jesus the man.
>
> >>> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
>
> >>I explained that to you above. And the suffering servant plays his part in
> >>those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
>
> >Duke, you are once again confusing an explanation with an assertion.
>
> Wrongo, little foolish boy, you are once again demonstrating your total lack of
> comprehension of what God told us. Which is exactly why you are an atheist
> wannabe.
Yet you lie again.
>
> Only the ignorant will wander down the path you do.
Mitchell Holman
news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Either God is not capable of preventing
tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
he WANTS tragedy to happen.
Yap
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:06:41 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>>alt.atheism:
>
> >>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >>>>>@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>>>>>and eat a banana.
>
> >>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>>>> Why is that?
>
> >>>>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
> >>>Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>
> >>NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>
> >You know that story is make-believe.
>
> Well, maybe to you it is, like the tooth fairy.
>
> >>>>And, most of all, everybody dies,
> >>>>including Jesus the man.
>
> >>>There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
> >>Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
> >You've been given enough chances to provide evidence. You know you don't
> >have any, so you make excuses for it.
>
> I've only been doing that for the last 10 years or so. Where have you been?
Yap
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:24:48 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:43:59 -0600, in alt.atheism
> ><6chte5ds8e8o96c70u0q5hi3860fn19...@4ax.com>:> >>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:41:35 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>alt.atheism:
>
> >>>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>>>news:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>
> >>>>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
handed all the time.
Mavisbeacon
"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...[snip]
>
>
>
> Either God is not capable of preventing
> tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
> he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>
If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of stopping
you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want you to stop
doing it?
Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't want you
to do?
Mitchell Holman
news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
So what is the point of prayer? Everything that happens
is because God wants it to happen, and do you really think
you are going to get him to change his plan?
Yap
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>
> > Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Either God is not capable of preventing
> > tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
> > he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>
> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of stopping
> you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want you to stop
> doing it?
> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't want you
> to do?
Yes, but unfortunately your god is supposed to have created and loved
human.
While it can be tolerance, it does not make any idiotic sense to allow
tragedy such as tsunami to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent
human.
Even we human, once armed with certain power, tends to exercise
justice and righteous kindness to the less unfortunate.
duke
The only reason my hand is red is because I keep beating some sense into your
head.
duke
fl is dreaming.
duke
The unknown is always fearful. God waiting for the righteous brings a lot of
comfort. Are you ready?
duke
>> NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>Show you? Hah, you must be 2000 years old at least?
>Your lie is hereby caught red handed.
Good grief. To think they let you walk among us.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Nov 5, 5:51�pm, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>
>> > Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > � � Either God is not capable of preventing
>> > tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
>> > he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>>
>> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of stopping
>> you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want you to stop
>> doing it?
Is Mavis supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient etc?
>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't want you
>> to do?
>
>Yes, but unfortunately your god is supposed to have created and loved
>human.
>While it can be tolerance, it does not make any idiotic sense to allow
>tragedy such as tsunami to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent
>human.
>Even we human, once armed with certain power, tends to exercise
>justice and righteous kindness to the less unfortunate.
It was yet again a bad analogy that presumed this hypothertical "God"
of hers was as real to you as parents are. If she had provided as much
evidence for it as for parents she might have had a point. But she
hadn't, and she didn't.
I have never understood why they do this. It simply confirms they have
no answer, as well as a few unflattering things about themselves.
Mavisbeacon
"Yap" <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b63773fa-e4dd-41f9...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 5, 5:51 pm, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>
> > Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Either God is not capable of preventing
> > tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
> > he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>
> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of stopping
> you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want you to stop
> doing it?
> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't want
> you
> to do?
...Yes, but unfortunately your god is supposed to have created and loved
human.
Who said it was MY God? I don't claim to own God and my personal beliefs
have nothing to do with an objective debate.
...While it can be tolerance, it does not make any idiotic sense to allow
tragedy such as tsunami to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent
human.
So if you can stop someone doing wrong you should always intervene and
prevent them from doing wrong rather than try to change them so that they
themselves chose not to do something wrong? It makes more sense to prevent
them expressing their freedom and denying them freedom than actually helping
them to change their ways?
How many people are alive in the world? Why do most die and what is the
quality of their life determined by? Is it God who makes a third of the
Children in the world go hungry every day? Is it God who puts people to
death for not believing in atheism or communism or Maoism or whatever? Is it
God who created WMD ? Is it God who allowed genocide in Rwanda Russia
Yugoslavia Sudan East Timor ....?
Apparently your idea seems to be all these things are the responsibility of
God because God allows them to happen! Do you really believe that? And you
think that is logical? Balme most of the death and squalor in the world on a
God in which you don't believe?
...Even we human, once armed with certain power, tends to exercise
justice and righteous kindness to the less unfortunate.
Quite the opposite in fact. Most of the "less fortunate" are in the position
they are in because of the greed and lust for power of people. surely you
already know the world is warming, the oil is running out, the richer people
overconsume and waste and interfere in poverty stricken nations to maintain
their over consumption?
The most powerfull nations in the world rather than justice and
righteousness maintain their inequitable control over the less powerfull!
You tell me you dont know this? You do not know that the US for example with
5 per cent of the worlds people uses about 25 per cent of the worlds oil
every year? That is being "kind" is it?
Mavisbeacon
> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
> news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
>
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Either God is not capable of preventing
>>> tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
>>> he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>>>
>>
>> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of
>> stopping you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want
>> you to stop doing it?
>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't
>> want you to do?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> So what is the point of prayer?
Do you always answer direct questions with questions about entirely
different subjects?
Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole option
left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
> Everything that happens
> is because God wants it to happen,
According to you this is determined by it being the only option loeft but it
isnt the only option left is it?
So yu are advancing it as an unsupported axiom! How do you know?
How do you know God wants bad things to happen? If I can see you are about
to slap a child does that mean I want you to?
>and do you really think
> you are going to get him to change his plan?
Oh I think I see what you are implying.
Is it the old "omniscience implies predetermination" argument?
Are you really claiming that knowing something is going to happen makes you
responsible for it?
If I know how a to make WMD am I responsible for anyone who ever uses WMD?
I would have thought that a prayer is admitting you don't know what will
happen in advance but are willing to accept the outcome if it is part of a
plan, even if you may think you are worse off in the meantime.
For example you may place all your money on a gamble and lose everything you
own. Later you might think that without sinking so low you would never have
abandonded the love of material wealth.
Do you really think that there was no point in a person at the time you
gambled thinking "lose" or "win"?
DO you think people should have no feelings at all about decisions others
take if those decisions do not directly affect them?
Mavisbeacon
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:vqi5f55an5ldmpu62...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 03:57:59 -0800 (PST), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 5, 5:51 pm, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>
>>> > Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> >news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> > Either God is not capable of preventing
>>> > tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
>>> > he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>>>
>>> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of
>>> stopping
>>> you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want you to stop
>>> doing it?
>
> Is Mavis supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient etc?
No just "capable of stopping you" in this example. But faoget about me and
let us not personalise this on me. If YOU are capable of stopping someone
should you restrict their freedom?
>
>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't want
>>> you
>>> to do?
>>
>>Yes, but unfortunately your god is supposed to have created and loved
>>human.
>>While it can be tolerance, it does not make any idiotic sense to allow
>>tragedy such as tsunami to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent
>>human.
>>Even we human, once armed with certain power, tends to exercise
>>justice and righteous kindness to the less unfortunate.
>
> It was yet again a bad analogy that presumed this hypothertical "God"
> of hers was as real to you as parents are.
I didnt suggest it was MY God - the other person brought up the God thing!
and they argued a logical principle . You are foolish if you think analogy
only applies to things that exist! Something may be logically consistant in
principle even if the thing does not exiat! In fact the original poster was
taking this position i.e. that GOD is doing something unfair or
unreasonable! "Reduction to absurdity" is what the argument implies. I would
think they dont actually believeGod exists but that does not matter for the
sake of the argument.
>If she had provided as much
> evidence for it as for parents she might have had a point. But she
> hadn't, and she didn't.
No you miss the point entirely!
If I claim that space aliens eating people is wrong that does not depend on
space aliens existing.
They may or may not exist! But we can bring in a law saying it is illegal
for them to do something.
Likewise laws can be created which may never be broken for example we could
make stealing water on Mars capital crime. But the human race might never
get to Mars.
>
> I have never understood why they do this. It simply confirms they have
> no answer, as well as a few unflattering things about themselves.
I didnt do it! The other posted introduced the idea of God being illogical
by allowing suffering.
I just pointed out that that does not follow! And I pointed out the
ludicrous position of most of the suffering in the world being man made and
assuming the poster does not believe in God how is it they cant apply the
same criticism to man?
Mitchell Holman
news:11e6b$4af2d260$bc8d1d56$12...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CBA3C5F1F32C...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.co
>>>> m:
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Either God is not capable of preventing
>>>> tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
>>>> he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of
>>> stopping you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want
>>> you to stop doing it?
>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't
>>> want you to do?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So what is the point of prayer?
>
> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about entirely
> different subjects?
>
> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
(which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
Which is it?
>
>> Everything that happens
>> is because God wants it to happen,
>
> According to you this is determined by it being the only option loeft
> but it isnt the only option left is it?
Are you saying God cannot control events?
Mavisbeacon
So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and you have
the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you can logically
conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want the event to happen?
>
>>
>>> Everything that happens
>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>
>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option loeft
>> but it isnt the only option left is it?
>
>
> Are you saying God cannot control events?
No.
Are you saying there are only two options?
Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you chose not
to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault even if the
person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not to do it?
I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to be
Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used them to
prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own rules of
showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this example god is
able to act but does not if that action requires him to use powers which are
not within the capability of a human.
In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things happening
then people could not do the same as him could they?
How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
position?
Alan Ford
>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>
> No.
> Are you saying there are only two options?
> Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you chose not
> to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault even if the
> person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not to do it?
>
> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to be
> Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used them to
> prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own rules of
> showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this example god is
> able to act but does not if that action requires him to use powers which are
> not within the capability of a human.
>
> In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things happening
> then people could not do the same as him could they?
> How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
> position?
And more importantly, how much drag do you think Superman's cape has
during his flight? Do you think he has to eat more in order to
compensate for that loss of energy? And if so, what is the best food for
a person from Krypton?
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Mavisbeacon
"Alan Ford" <zzz...@qqq.net> wrote in message
news:hcven4$7no$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using his
super powers. The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to
live just like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to
advance his own position in normal life?
>
>
>
> --
> If you don't beat your meat
> You can't have any pudding
> How can you have any pudding
> If you don't beat your meat?
Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
Mitchell Holman
news:8473a$4af2e627$bc8d1d56$5...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CBA587E64DCn...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:11e6b$4af2d260$bc8d1d56$12...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CBA3C5F1F32C...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>> news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.
>>>>>> co m:
>>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either God is not capable of preventing
>>>>>> tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
>>>>>> he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of
>>>>> stopping you and I really care about it does that imply I don't
>>>>> want you to stop doing it?
>>>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't
>>>>> want you to do?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what is the point of prayer?
>>>
>>> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about entirely
>>> different subjects?
>>>
>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>
>>
>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>
>> Which is it?
>
> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want
> the event to happen?
Evasion noted.
Either God wants natural disasters to happen
or he cannot prevent them.
Which is it?
>>
>>>
>>>> Everything that happens
>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>
>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>
>>
>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>
> No.
> Are you saying there are only two options?
Yes.
__God wants disasters to happen.
__God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
Which is it?
> Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you chose
> not to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault even if
> the person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not to do it?
Bingo.
>
> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to
> be Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used
> them to prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own
> rules of showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this
> example god is able to act but does not if that action requires him to
> use powers which are not within the capability of a human.
>
You are assume Christ had "powers". Unproven.
Mavisbeacon
The analogy id FALSE! Look up "excluded middle" . It is a fallacy!
>
> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
> or he cannot prevent them.
>
> Which is it?
PleASE LOOK UP "EXCLUDED MIDDLE" AND "FALSE ANALOGY" ! It is not a case of
either it is A or B!
Your reasoninbg is simplistic.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Everything that happens
>>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>>
>>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>>
>> No.
>> Are you saying there are only two options?
>
>
> Yes.
But you are saying that if someone is hitting a child either you can stop
them ot you want it to happen. Clearly this is a silly proposition and
anyone can see there are other options and possibilities?
>
> __God wants disasters to happen.
>
> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>
>
> Which is it?
It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not do so
not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt other people.
This is basis ethics/theeology.philosophy 101 ! It has been dealt with in
the very basic of any course on it. I won't argue about angels on the heads
of pins. If you can't accept that the slapping of every child being slapped
which you witness and can stop is not your fault then I really can't help
you.
>
>
>> Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you chose
>> not to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault even if
>> the person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not to do it?
>
>
> Bingo.
So yu think a person slapping a child is your fault if you witness it and
could stop them?
Even if intervening and stopping them takes away their ability to chose for
themselves?
I guess I cant help your nanny state mommy knows best attitide.
You are clearly heqavily influenced by authoritanism - someting for whiuch
youy criticise religions! You are a walking contradiction!
>
>
>
>>
>> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to
>> be Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used
>> them to prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own
>> rules of showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this
>> example god is able to act but does not if that action requires him to
>> use powers which are not within the capability of a human.
>>
>
>
> You are assume Christ had "powers". Unproven.
Notice the word "IF" . I can also say "IF SUPERMAN" but superman does not
have to exist for the analogy to be valid.
Please learn something about logical argument.
But whether Superman or God exists is SEPERATE to the logical flow of the
argument.
duke
The real answer: he allows those things to happen. His promise is for
spiritual salvation,not physical salvation. After all, every man is given the
chance to live one life then die - some before birth and some at a very old age,
some peacefully, and some tragically.
Mitchell Holman
news:4moaf5dos1c8j2isg...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:53:04 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>news:8473a$4af2e627$bc8d1d56$5...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CBA587E64DCn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>> news:11e6b$4af2d260$bc8d1d56$12...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9CBA3C5F1F32C...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>>>> news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>>> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroup
>>>>>>>> s. co m:
You mean he CAUSED those things to happen, no?
> His promise is
> for spiritual salvation,not physical salvation.
How does people dying in natural disasters
contribute to their "spiritual salvation"?
> After all, every man
> is given the chance to live one life then die - some before birth and
> some at a very old age, some peacefully, and some tragically.
Sounds like your god is either malicious
or less than "all mighty".
Great Dayne
> "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> But the Christians do NOT want to get it.
It is argumentative question. It is a loaded question.
It reaches a conclusion based on a false premise.
GOD can make a rock as large as he wants and he can also lift any rock
he wants.
You ask the suggestive question to try to place a limit on deity that
is unwarranted by the
cunning sophistry of men.
Strike 2.
Mitchell Holman
news:3e8c0$4af54315$bc8d1d47$26...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CBBCA46CD554...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:8473a$4af2e627$bc8d1d56$5...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CBA587E64DCn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>> news:11e6b$4af2d260$bc8d1d56$12...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9CBA3C5F1F32C...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>>>> news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>>> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroup
>>>>>>>> s. co m:
We are talking about natural disasters here.
Why do you keep changing the subject?
>
>>
>> __God wants disasters to happen.
>>
>> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>>
>>
>> Which is it?
>
>
> It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not do
> so not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt other
> people.
We are talking about natural disasters here.
Why do you keep changing the subject?
>
> This is basis ethics/theeology.philosophy 101 ! It has been dealt with
> in the very basic of any course on it. I won't argue about angels on
> the heads of pins. If you can't accept that the slapping of every
> child being slapped which you witness and can stop is not your fault
> then I really can't help you.
>
Evasion noted.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you
>>> chose not to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault
>>> even if the person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not
>>> to do it?
>>
>>
>> Bingo.
>
> So yu think a person slapping a child is your fault if you witness it
> and could stop them?
> Even if intervening and stopping them takes away their ability to
> chose for themselves?
>
We are talking about natural disasters here.
Why do you keep changing the subject?
Great Dayne
Damn google double post
duke
>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>>>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>
>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
>>>> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
>>>> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want
>>>> the event to happen?
>>>
>>>
>>> Evasion noted.
>
>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>or he cannot prevent them.
>>> Which is it?
>> The real answer: he allows those things to happen.
> You mean he CAUSED those things to happen, no?
No. Natural disasters are just that, natural disasters.
>> His promise is for spiritual salvation,not physical salvation.
> How does people dying in natural disasters
>contribute to their "spiritual salvation"?
It doesn't to the victims of natural disasters. But it does spiritual wonders
for bringing out the love and compassion of others.
>> After all, every man
>> is given the chance to live one life then die - some before birth and
>> some at a very old age, some peacefully, and some tragically.
> Sounds like your god is either malicious or less than "all mighty".
Nope. God does not bring about natural disasters.
Mitchell Holman
news:qs9bf5173sajcvl63...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:26:27 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the
>>>>>>> sole option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child
>>>>> and you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that
>>>>> means you can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and
>>>>> that you want the event to happen?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Evasion noted.
>>
>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>>or he cannot prevent them.
>>>> Which is it?
>
>>> The real answer: he allows those things to happen.
>
>> You mean he CAUSED those things to happen, no?
>
> No. Natural disasters are just that, natural disasters.
>
If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>> His promise is for spiritual salvation,not physical salvation.
>
>> How does people dying in natural disasters
>>contribute to their "spiritual salvation"?
>
> It doesn't to the victims of natural disasters. But it does spiritual
> wonders for bringing out the love and compassion of others.
So love and compassion require death and destruction?
Amazing.
>
>>> After all, every man
>>> is given the chance to live one life then die - some before birth
>>> and some at a very old age, some peacefully, and some tragically.
>
>> Sounds like your god is either malicious or less than "all
>> mighty".
>
> Nope. God does not bring about natural disasters.
Didn't you say everything in nature was created by God?
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:qs9bf5173sajcvl63...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:26:27 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the
>>>>>>>> sole option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child
>>>>>> and you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that
>>>>>> means you can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and
>>>>>> that you want the event to happen?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>
>>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>>>or he cannot prevent them.
>>>>> Which is it?
>>
>>>> The real answer: he allows those things to happen.
>>
>>> You mean he CAUSED those things to happen, no?
>>
>> No. Natural disasters are just that, natural disasters.
> If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
>hurricanes and earthquakes.
No, he made the elements that can become tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>>> His promise is for spiritual salvation,not physical salvation.
>>
>>> How does people dying in natural disasters
>>>contribute to their "spiritual salvation"?
>>
>> It doesn't to the victims of natural disasters. But it does spiritual
>> wonders for bringing out the love and compassion of others.
> So love and compassion require death and destruction?
> Amazing.
It's the end result of evil mankind.
>>>> After all, every man
>>>> is given the chance to live one life then die - some before birth
>>>> and some at a very old age, some peacefully, and some tragically.
>>> Sounds like your god is either malicious or less than "all
>>> mighty".
>> Nope. God does not bring about natural disasters.
> Didn't you say everything in nature was created by God?
No.
Budikka666
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:12:34 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net>
> > If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
> >hurricanes and earthquakes.
>
> No, he made the elements that can become tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes.
Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
1. Exists
and
2. Actually created anything.
We're waiting.
Budikka
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 8, 6:55�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:12:34 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net>
>> > � �If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
>> >hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>
>> No, he made the elements that can become tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes.
>
>Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
>present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
>1. Exists
He created the universe and everything in it according to the physicists.
>2. Actually created anything.
All evidence says it.
>We're waiting.
Then you don't have to hold your breath, bud the dud.
Mitchell Holman
news:f34ef555t84kbrlrs...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 05:42:04 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 8, 6:55�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:12:34 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>> <noem...@comcast.net>
>>> > � �If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
>>> >hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>>
>>> No, he made the elements that can become tornadoes, hurricanes and
>>> earthquakes.
>>
>>Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
>>present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
>
>>1. Exists
>
> He created the universe and everything in it according to the
> physicists.
What physicists?
>
>>2. Actually created anything.
>
> All evidence says it.
What evidence?
duke
> What physicists?
All of them.
>>>2. Actually created anything.
>> All evidence says it.
> What evidence?
Something out of nothing into nothing. See how simple that is.
Don Martin
>> But you are saying that if someone is hitting a child either you can
>> stop them ot you want it to happen. Clearly this is a silly
>> proposition and anyone can see there are other options and
>> possibilities?
>>
>
>
> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>
> Why do you keep changing the subject?
Because she IS a natural disaster, and finds the subject uncomfortable?
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Mavisbeacon
WE are talkiong about people dying in suffereing and who is responsible.
Natural disasters (in the twentieth century) at most kill millions over
decades. Man made probalems kill hundreds of times that!
>
> Why do you keep changing the subject?
I didn't the subject was about a fallacy! You contiune to post more
fallacies.
>
>
>
>>
>> This is basis ethics/theeology.philosophy 101 ! It has been dealt with
>> in the very basic of any course on it. I won't argue about angels on
>> the heads of pins. If you can't accept that the slapping of every
>> child being slapped which you witness and can stop is not your fault
>> then I really can't help you.
>>
>
> Evasion noted.
Of what? You present a fallacious situation and when the fallacy isnt
answered you call it an "evasion"?
The only thing being evaded is LOGIC and that is by you!
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you
>>>> chose not to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault
>>>> even if the person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not
>>>> to do it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bingo.
>>
>> So yu think a person slapping a child is your fault if you witness it
>> and could stop them?
>> Even if intervening and stopping them takes away their ability to
>> chose for themselves?
>>
>
>
>
> We are talking about natural disasters here.
WE are talking about the ability of someone to intervene and the action of
intervening That us the general case. The specific case you cited is God
intervening to stop a tsunami for example.
You claim was that if God didnt stop a tsunami either he does not care about
the people who die or he cant stop a tsunami.
It isd a false analogy!
ANd I cited a simpler example if you can intervene and chose not to. That
does noty make you responsible!
>
> Why do you keep changing the subject?
From the principle of "someoine having the ability to intervene being
responsiuble oif they dont!?
I havent changed from that!
WHy do you keep aviding answering about it?
Alan Ford
>>> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to be
>>> Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used them to
>>> prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own rules of
>>> showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this example god
>>> is able to act but does not if that action requires him to use powers
>>> which are not within the capability of a human.
>>>
>>> In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things
>>> happening then people could not do the same as him could they?
>>> How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
>>> position?
>>
>> And more importantly, how much drag do you think Superman's cape has
>> during his flight? Do you think he has to eat more in order to compensate
>> for that loss of energy? And if so, what is the best food for a person
>> from Krypton?
>
> Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using his
> super powers.
That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
imaginary, fictional characters, their alleged characteristics and the
methods those characters would employ as a response to certain physical
stimuli.
> The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to
> live just like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to
> advance his own position in normal life?
There is no "question of principle" anywhere other than what you claim.
I can also come up with a random question, say "Could Jesus also deflect
bullets fired at him from modern firearms and, if so, why couldn't he
deflect primitive rusty nails and thorns?", then call it the question of
principle.
>> If you don't beat your meat
>> You can't have any pudding
>> How can you have any pudding
>> If you don't beat your meat?
>
> Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
> I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
It's a free country - you do what makes you happy with your meat and
I'll do what makes me happy with mine.
Puck Greenman
Yes.
>>>>>>>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I
>>>>>>>>> don't want you to do?
Then you don't care as much as you profess.
Which makes you a hypocrite.
...Is that what your god is?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what is the point of prayer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about
>>>>>>> entirely different subjects?
>>>>>>>c
>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>>>>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
>>>>> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
>>>>> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want
>>>>> the event to happen?
That, or I don't give a damn.
Are we to take it then, that your god, doesn't give a damn?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>
>>>
>>> The analogy id FALSE! Look up "excluded middle" . It is a fallacy!
Binary propositions, are not always fallacies.
The christian churches propose a god which is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all
caring, all sweetness and light, etc, etc.
How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent natural disasters, and
injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which christians claim for
it?
The proposition is, of it's nature, binary; Either God, is all those good things, or it
aint.
There is no middle, to exclude.
The real fallacy here, is your insistence on using illogical analogies. You cannot
compare the natural limitations of humanity, with the omniscience, and omnipotence, of
your god.
>>>>
>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>> or he cannot prevent them.
>>>>
>>>> Which is it?
Perhaps it just don't give a damn, Mitchell.
>>>
>>> PleASE LOOK UP "EXCLUDED MIDDLE" AND "FALSE ANALOGY" ! It is not a
>>> case of either it is A or B!
>>> Your reasoninbg is simplistic.
So you have learned a new phrase.
Unfortunately, your use of it only serves to bring to mind, words like pot, kettle, and
black arse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everything that happens
>>>>>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>>>>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>> Are you saying there are only two options?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>> But you are saying that if someone is hitting a child either you can
>>> stop them ot you want it to happen. Clearly this is a silly proposition and
>>>anyone can see there are other options and possibilities?
Straw man.
We are not omnipotent, for us, there can be many reasons why we do not intervene, not
least of which is the law of the land.
Your god, OTOH, IS omnipotent, supposedly, and it is also touted as a loving and
beneficent god.
If this is true, then for your god to permit the innocent to suffer in these natural
disasters, is a paradox, which can only resolve it's self as - A: it has the power, but
doesn't care, or is malevolent and wants the negative events to happen. In which case, the
" loving and beneficent god.", is a lie.
Or,
B: it does not have the ability to prevent it, so it is not omnipotent.
>>>
>>
>>
>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>
>> Why do you keep changing the subject?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> __God wants disasters to happen.
>>>>
>>>> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is it?
>>>
>>>
>>> It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not do
>>> so not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt other
>>> people.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>
>WE are talkiong about people dying in suffereing and who is responsible.
>Natural disasters (in the twentieth century) at most kill millions over
>decades. Man made probalems kill hundreds of times that!
>
Another straw man.
No, we are not.
There can be no comparison between the intervention of an all powerful god, and the
limited intervention of a human.
Your efforts to conflate the two, is it's self, a fallacy.
snip repetition.
Mavisbeacon
> Mavisbeacon wrote:
>
>>>> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to be
>>>> Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used them
>>>> to prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own rules
>>>> of showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this example
>>>> god is able to act but does not if that action requires him to use
>>>> powers which are not within the capability of a human.
>>>>
>>>> In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things
>>>> happening then people could not do the same as him could they?
>>>> How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
>>>> position?
>>>
>>> And more importantly, how much drag do you think Superman's cape has
>>> during his flight? Do you think he has to eat more in order to
>>> compensate for that loss of energy? And if so, what is the best food for
>>> a person from Krypton?
>>
>> Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using his
>> super powers.
>
> That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
> imaginary, fictional characters,
WRONG! Jesus is a historical figure as a human being as well as any claims
of him being either a Prophet or of him being God.
There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son two
thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great or
Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
>their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would employ
>as a response to certain physical stimuli.
I have no idea what you mean by the above.
>
>> The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to live just
>> like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to advance his
>> own position in normal life?
>
> There is no "question of principle" anywhere
YES THERE ARE!
"that action requires him to use powers
which are not within the capability of a human."
Or from the earlier discussion "whether refusal to act is just because
acting removes free will of the other person"
>other than what you claim. I can also come up with a random question,
My point was not random. It was directly related to the false analogy of -
God is either uncaring or impotent becuase God does not prevent disasters.
>say "Could Jesus also deflect bullets fired at him from modern firearms
>and, if so, why couldn't he deflect primitive rusty nails and thorns?",
>then call it the question of principle.
If he was in fact God he COULD and he could also turn stones into bread.
But the very point is HE DIDNT - WHY didnt he?
Because the point is twofold
1. He didnt act in a way which other humans could not emulate
2. Because God does not intervene does not therefore mean God is callous.
>
>>> If you don't beat your meat
>>> You can't have any pudding
>>> How can you have any pudding
>>> If you don't beat your meat?
>>
>> Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
>> I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
>
> It's a free country - you do what makes you happy with your meat and I'll
> do what makes me happy with mine.
But the quote is a MISQUOTE! it should be "eat your meat"
WHERE is a free country?
Mavisbeacon
"Puck Greenman" <dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q0fgf55ca66vmm3an...@4ax.com...
No it doesn't! Clearly people may ALLOW others to do wrong because they
tolerate them and don't want to restrict their freedom to cause harm even if
harm comes from allowing others such freedom.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I
>>>>>>>>>> don't want you to do?
>
> Then you don't care as much as you profess.
It is a central principle of demiocracy. for example censorship is nbanning
what people do not want. Is it therefore just?
Obviously when it comes to the group doing the banning or the group being
banned I know which group you want to be in!
>
> Which makes you a hypocrite.
>
> ...Is that what your god is?
How am I being hypocritical?
>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what is the point of prayer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about
>>>>>>>> entirely different subjects?
>>>>>>>>c
>>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>>>>>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
>>>>>> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
>>>>>> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want
>>>>>> the event to happen?
>
> That, or I don't give a damn.
You just contradicted yoor "YES" above.
Clearly people may ALLOW others to do wrong because they tolerate them and
don't want to restrict their freedom to cause harm even if harm comes from
allowing others such freedom
>
> Are we to take it then, that your god, doesn't give a damn?
Where did i say anything about MY god?
I just pointed out about the other false analogy made. Please dont try to
"shift the burden".
That is another fallacy!
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The analogy id FALSE! Look up "excluded middle" . It is a fallacy!
>
> Binary propositions, are not always fallacies.
True.
Assuming this one is not IS a fallacy!
>
> The christian churches propose a god which is all powerful, all knowing,
> all loving, all
> caring, all sweetness and light, etc, etc.
Yes so?
>
> How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent
> natural disasters, and
> injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which
> christians claim for
> it?
I think I already answered that. Intervention may remove free will. Also it
isnt the not intervening impliues not caring position you paint. Asked and
answered
>
> The proposition is, of it's nature, binary; Either God, is all those good
> things, or it
> aint.
Yes either God is good and reasonable or God is not.
Because you dont stop someone from expressing their opinion that does not
make you unreasonable does it?
Do you believe in anti Holocaust denial laws for example or in censorship or
holocaust deniers?
>
> There is no middle, to exclude.
If you CHANGE the princinple to "God is either Good or not Good) ther is no
excluded middle.
But the context was assuming "intervention to stop suffering is always good
and reasonable" . But that is not necessarily always true.
>
> The real fallacy here, is your insistence on using illogical analogies.
> You cannot
> compare the natural limitations of humanity, with the omniscience, and
> omnipotence, of
> your god.
I never mantioned anything abut MY God! I only pointed out that the position
that if an omnipotent God does not intervene that does not mean he therefore
does not care.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>>> or he cannot prevent them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is it?
>
> Perhaps it just don't give a damn, Mitchell.
Who is Mitchell? you are babbling?
Perhaps God does not care is a valid proposition however. But not
intervening DOES NOT LOGICALLY PROVE that proposition!
>
>>>>
>>>> PleASE LOOK UP "EXCLUDED MIDDLE" AND "FALSE ANALOGY" ! It is not a
>>>> case of either it is A or B!
>>>> Your reasoninbg is simplistic.
>
> So you have learned a new phrase.
I have referred to such fallacies for years!
>
> Unfortunately, your use of it only serves to bring to mind, words like
> pot, kettle, and
> black arse.
I also used "ad hominem" before. Personbal attack wont prove your point ! In
fact is shows how desperate you are becoming.
>>>>>>>>> Everything that happens
>>>>>>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>>>>>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>> Are you saying there are only two options?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But you are saying that if someone is hitting a child either you can
>>>> stop them ot you want it to happen. Clearly this is a silly proposition
>>>> and
>>>>anyone can see there are other options and possibilities?
>
> Straw man.
NO! YOU are the one saying this binary position is the only possibility. YOU
claim either the person (God or me or you) does not care or can not stop the
other person doing wrong (or something else bad like a disaster happening).
> We are not omnipotent, for us, there can be many reasons why we do not
> intervene, not
> least of which is the law of the land.
But how would not being omnipotent change that when the position is WE CAN
INTERVENE AND HAVE THE POWER TO PREVENT THE ACT?
>
> Your god, OTOH, IS omnipotent, supposedly, and it is also touted as a
> loving and
> beneficent god.
So what even if God was of limited power and could only stop natural
disasters u to acertain size, the PRINCIPLE is the same!
>
> If this is true, then for your god to permit the innocent to suffer in
> these natural
> disasters, is a paradox,
No it isnt! People can also cause or fail to act on things they are capable
of preventing . Whether they are omnipotent is NOT THE ISSUE!
The issue is whether someoine who is CAPABLE OF PREVENTING SOMETHING and who
does not prevent it is unreasonable!
Clearly people are NOT unreasonable in every case that they refuse to act!
>which can only resolve it's self as - A: it has the power, but
> doesn't care, or is malevolent and wants the negative events to happen. In
> which case, the
> " loving and beneficent god.", is a lie.
You need lessons in philosophy and logic!
>
> Or,
>
> B: it does not have the ability to prevent it, so it is not omnipotent.
>
ASked and answered. go and get a qualification in philosophy or logic. You
will deal with such issues very early on. I have already explained it but
you continue to blindly follow your belief.
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>>
>>> Why do you keep changing the subject?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __God wants disasters to happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not do
>>>> so not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt other
>>>> people.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>
>>WE are talkiong about people dying in suffereing and who is responsible.
>>Natural disasters (in the twentieth century) at most kill millions over
>>decades. Man made probalems kill hundreds of times that!
>>
>
> Another straw man.
No it isnt! We are talking about the principle of being able to prevent
something and not doing so!
It isnt always evil to not act or to allow others their freedom even if they
cauyse harm by having such freedom!
Yes we are! YOU claimed God can prevent natural disasters! Andpeople also
can prevent things which may cause harm. But God or people allowing such
things to happen is NOT always wrong!
>
> There can be no comparison between the intervention of an all powerful
> god, and the
> limited intervention of a human.
LOL! You are the one now reifying the argument!
You are using the "for God it is different" argument.
But that is the WHOLE PINT of Christianint isn't it? The point is that
people CAN live like Christ and it is NOT different. No god powers are
required!
>
> Your efforts to conflate the two, is it's self, a fallacy.
>
No it isnt! the laws of reason and logic apply to god just as they do to
man! Otherwist the iodea of a "fallacy" is of no value to any such argument
since you claim falliicies do not apply to a God who does not have to live
by any yardstick that man does!
Please come back when yo accept the basic proinciples of logic and reason.
Puck Greenman
>Who said it was MY God? I don't claim to own God and my personal beliefs
>have nothing to do with an objective debate.
Pathetic, childish, semantics.
About the level I would expect from a slightly slow 12 year old.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 8, 6:55�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:12:34 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net>
>> > � �If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
>> >hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>
>> No, he made the elements that can become tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes.
>
>Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
>present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
>1. Exists
The scientific evidence: The big bang.
>2. Actually created anything.
The only answer.
>We're waiting.
Done, dud.
Mavisbeacon
In spite of your ad hiominem the point is that I dont need to defend
anything about anything I claimed about MY god since I didnt do so!
Yu re clearly trying to switch the focus for YOUR CLAIMS to MY god.
I didn't make any claims about MY God or whether I believed in a GOd.
So dont try to SHIFT THE BURDEN onto me to prove something I didnt claim!
I note you also avoided addressing anything else in the post to which you
replied with this waffle.
Such as:
So if you can stop someone doing wrong you should always intervene and
prevent them from doing wrong rather than try to change them so that they
themselves chose not to do something wrong? It makes more sense to prevent
them expressing their freedom and denying them freedom than actually helping
them to change their ways?
How many people are alive in the world? Why do most die and what is the
quality of their life determined by? Is it God who makes a third of the
Children in the world go hungry every day? Is it God who puts people to
death for not believing in atheism or communism or Maoism or whatever? Is it
God who created WMD ? Is it God who allowed genocide in Rwanda Russia
Yugoslavia Sudan East Timor ....?
Apparently your idea seems to be all these things are the responsibility of
God because God allows them to happen! Do you really believe that? And you
think that is logical? Blame most of the death and squalor in the world on a
God in which you don't believe?
and...
Most of the "less fortunate" are in the position
they are in because of the greed and lust for power of people. surely you
already know the world is warming, the oil is running out, the richer people
overconsume and waste and interfere in poverty stricken nations to maintain
their over consumption?
The most powerfull nations in the world rather than justice and
righteousness maintain their inequitable control over the less powerfull!
You tell me you dont know this? You do not know that the US for example with
5 per cent of the worlds people uses about 25 per cent of the worlds oil
every year? That is being "kind" is it?
Your position is are full of evasion and logical fallacy.
Alan Ford
>>>>> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to be
>>>>> Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used them
>>>>> to prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own rules
>>>>> of showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this example
>>>>> god is able to act but does not if that action requires him to use
>>>>> powers which are not within the capability of a human.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things
>>>>> happening then people could not do the same as him could they?
>>>>> How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
>>>>> position?
>>>> And more importantly, how much drag do you think Superman's cape has
>>>> during his flight? Do you think he has to eat more in order to
>>>> compensate for that loss of energy? And if so, what is the best food for
>>>> a person from Krypton?
>>> Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using his
>>> super powers.
>> That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
>> imaginary, fictional characters,
>
> WRONG! Jesus is a historical figure as a human being as well as any claims
> of him being either a Prophet or of him being God.
And, of course, you'll provide evidence of that right here:
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
>
> There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son two
> thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great or
> Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
What's that got to do with anything? There may be historicity and
artifacts for hundreds of carpenters' sons, but that is beside the
point. The Bible and consequently all of Christianity rests on the claim
that Jesus was an offspring of a deity, not some dime-a-dozen son of a
carpenter. That is what the Bible claims. If you are trying to say that
Jesus could have been just a human being with no divine characteristics
whatsoever, then who gives a shit? That, if anything, disproves the
biblical claims.
>
> Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
Give it a few hundred years of memetics and some clever propaganda
enforced by genocide and Superman can just as well become a person whose
"historicity and artifacts" are indisputable. Look at Scientology and
Mormonism.
>> their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would employ
>> as a response to certain physical stimuli.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by the above.
Not my fault.
>
>>> The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to live just
>>> like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to advance his
>>> own position in normal life?
>> There is no "question of principle" anywhere
>
> YES THERE ARE!
Oh, well, I didn't realize you were going to use capital letters. All my
bases are belong to you now.
> "that action requires him to use powers
> which are not within the capability of a human."
>
> Or from the earlier discussion "whether refusal to act is just because
> acting removes free will of the other person"
>
>> other than what you claim. I can also come up with a random question,
>
> My point was not random. It was directly related to the false analogy of -
> God is either uncaring or impotent becuase God does not prevent disasters.
This, while interesting up to a point, is really a quite irrelevant
issue because in order to even be able to address it, one first has to
show some, *any*, evidence for this alleged "God". So far, we've seen
none. Until that happens, this "God" is as real as Superman.
>
>> say "Could Jesus also deflect bullets fired at him from modern firearms
>> and, if so, why couldn't he deflect primitive rusty nails and thorns?",
>> then call it the question of principle.
>
> If he was in fact God he COULD and he could also turn stones into bread.
> But the very point is HE DIDNT - WHY didnt he?
> Because the point is twofold
> 1. He didnt act in a way which other humans could not emulate
Then why did he multiply the fish, heal [some] blind people, resurrect
[some] dead people and himself, iow he acted in a way which other humans
could not emulate?
> 2. Because God does not intervene does not therefore mean God is callous.
No, it means that he does not exist. Not because of any of this academic
logic, but because there is zero evidence for his existence and
overwhelming evidence that there is nothing even remotely similar to
what you call God.
>>>> If you don't beat your meat
>>>> You can't have any pudding
>>>> How can you have any pudding
>>>> If you don't beat your meat?
>>> Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
>>> I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
>> It's a free country - you do what makes you happy with your meat and I'll
>> do what makes me happy with mine.
>
> But the quote is a MISQUOTE! it should be "eat your meat"
Call the quote police.
>
> WHERE is a free country?
You got a point there. Nowhere, really.
Puck Greenman
>> That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
>> imaginary, fictional characters,
>
>WRONG! Jesus is a historical figure
...And your evidence for that assertion is ... What, Exactly?
> as a human being as well as any claims
>of him being either a Prophet or of him being God.
>
>There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son two
>thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great or
>Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
So produce some of this objective evidence.
>
>Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
>
>
>>their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would employ
>>as a response to certain physical stimuli.
>
>I have no idea what you mean by the above.
>
What: Not convenient?
snip remaining blather.
Puck Greenman
Yes,, it does.
If you cared, you would stop me.
>Clearly people may ALLOW others to do wrong because they
>tolerate them and don't want to restrict their freedom to cause harm even if
>harm comes from allowing others such freedom.
>
>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't want you to do?
>>
>> Then you don't care as much as you profess.
>
>It is a central principle of demiocracy. for example censorship is nbanning
>what people do not want.
Censorship, is the minority, forcing their will on the majority.
What people don't want, they won't pay for.
The fact that a need is felt to censor a thing, indicates that people DO want it.
> Is it therefore just?
>Obviously when it comes to the group doing the banning or the group being
>banned I know which group you want to be in!
>
>>
>> Which makes you a hypocrite.
>>
>> ...Is that what your god is?
>
>How am I being hypocritical?
>
You tell us how much you care, yet when the situation arises whereby you have the ability,
and the opportunity, to put your caring into action, you pass by on the other side of the
road.
>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So what is the point of prayer?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about
>>>>>>>>> entirely different subjects?
>>>>>>>>>c
>>>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>>>>>>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
>>>>>>> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
>>>>>>> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want
>>>>>>> the event to happen?
>>
>> That, or I don't give a damn.
>
>You just contradicted yoor "YES" above.
Reading for comprehension, aint your strong suit, is it, Mavis?
It the above scenario, I am the one clouting the kids.
How does my not caring if you batter your's, contradict my reply?
>Clearly people may ALLOW others to do wrong because they tolerate them and
>don't want to restrict their freedom to cause harm even if harm comes from
>allowing others such freedom
>
But we are discussing a god, and natural disasters, not people.
>
>>
>> Are we to take it then, that your god, doesn't give a damn?
>
>
>Where did i say anything about MY god?
>
That is what we are discussing, that is what all of these silly analogies of your refer
to.
Or are you trying to change the subject?
>
>I just pointed out about the other false analogy made. Please dont try to
>"shift the burden".
>That is another fallacy!
>
Word of advice: Don't use terminology, which you do not understand.
That includes all assertions to fallacies, and references to logic.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The analogy id FALSE! Look up "excluded middle" . It is a fallacy!
>>
>> Binary propositions, are not always fallacies.
>
>True.
>Assuming this one is not IS a fallacy!
>
>>
>> The christian churches propose a god which is all powerful, all knowing,
>> all loving, all
>> caring, all sweetness and light, etc, etc.
>
>Yes so?
>
>>
>> How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent
>> natural disasters, and
>> injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which
>> christians claim for
>> it?
>
>I think I already answered that.
I do not recall reading that.
> Intervention may remove free will.
Where, in the bible, does it mention man having free will?
The only place that freewill is mentioned in the bible, IIRC, is in Leviticus, and is
referring to "freewill offerings". i.e. sacrifice.
> Also it isnt the not intervening impliues not caring position you paint.
Then what is it?
> Asked and answered
Well, asked, anyway.
>
>>
>> The proposition is, of it's nature, binary; Either God, is all those good
>> things, or it
>> aint.
>
>Yes either God is good and reasonable or God is not.
>
>Because you dont stop someone from expressing their opinion that does not
>make you unreasonable does it?
Irrelevant, I am not omnipotent and omniscient.
>
>Do you believe in anti Holocaust denial laws for example or in censorship or
>holocaust deniers?
>
I know that such, exist; belief is irrelevant.
>>
>> There is no middle, to exclude.
>
>If you CHANGE the princinple to "God is either Good or not Good) ther is no
>excluded middle.
There is nothing to change, your god id either all good, or not all good: Or are you now
going to invent gray areas, for your god.
>
>But the context was assuming "inteyrvention to stop suffering is always good
>and reasonable" . But that is not necessarily always true.
>
Suggest a scenario, where in, it is not good.
>
>>
>> The real fallacy here, is your insistence on using illogical analogies.
>> You cannot
>> compare the natural limitations of humanity, with the omniscience, and
>> omnipotence, of
>> your god.
>
>I never mantioned anything abut MY God! I only pointed out that the position
>that if an omnipotent God does not intervene that does not mean he therefore
>does not care.
So you don't believe in this "God"(capitalised); Right?
>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>>>> or he cannot prevent them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is it?
>>
>> Perhaps it just don't give a damn, Mitchell.
>
>
>Who is Mitchell? you are babbling?
You really are stupid, aren't you.
" Mitchell", is the person who asked, " Which is it?"
Don't you even look to see who you are talking to?
>
>Perhaps God does not care is a valid proposition however. But not
>intervening DOES NOT LOGICALLY PROVE that proposition!
>
Unless you can offer some other logical reason why an all loving, all caring, all
powerful, being would NOT intervene, given the world's history, and the atrocities
committed in it's name, if no others, also, of course assuming that such a thing exists,
then "God doesn't give a damn", must be the default position.
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> PleASE LOOK UP "EXCLUDED MIDDLE" AND "FALSE ANALOGY" ! It is not a
>>>>> case of either it is A or B!
>>>>> Your reasoninbg is simplistic.
>>
>> So you have learned a new phrase.
>
>I have referred to such fallacies for years!
>y
And yet, over the last several weeks, even when you have been faced with the excluded
middle fallacies, you have not only not mentioned them, but have not recognised them.
Until, that is, your own, excluded middle, fallacies, were pointed out.
Why would that be?
>>
>> Unfortunately, your use of it only serves to bring to mind, words like
>> pot, kettle, and
>> black arse.
>
>
>I also used "ad hominem" before. Personbal attack wont prove your point ! In
>fact is shows how desperate you are becoming.
>
Once again you use a term, incorrectly.
Your line, "Your reasoninbg is simplistic.",is an ad homonym.
I, OTOH, was merely making an observation, completely aside from the subject matter of the
debate.
An insult, if you understand that better.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>> Everything that happens
>>>>>>>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>>>>>>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>> Are you saying there are only two options?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But you are saying that if someone is hitting a child either you can
>>>>> stop them ot you want it to happen. Clearly this is a silly proposition
>>>>> and
>>>>>anyone can see there are other options and possibilities?
>>
>> Straw man.
>
>NO! YOU are the one saying this binary position is the only possibility. YOU
>claim either the person (God or me or you)
Diversion.
We are only discussing your god.
> does not care or can not stop the
>other person doing wrong (or something else bad like a disaster happening).
>
As I said, only your god, or any god that you care to imagine, for that matter.
>
>> We are not omnipotent, for us, there can be many reasons why we do not
>> intervene, not
>> least of which is the law of the land.
>
>But how would not being omnipotent change that when the position is WE CAN
>INTERVENE AND HAVE THE POWER TO PREVENT THE ACT?
>
Straw man.
We are discussing your god, not mortals.
>
>>
>> Your god, OTOH, IS omnipotent, supposedly, and it is also touted as a
>> loving and
>> beneficent god.
>
>
>So what even if God was of limited power and could only stop natural
>disasters u to acertain size, the PRINCIPLE is the same!
>
No, it isn't.
It is a question of ability, which is why your analogies, involving humans, are fallacies.
You expect humans, with limited ability, to act, but excuse your god, with it's UNLIMITED
ability, for not acting.
If your god had only limited ability, then it's inaction would be excusable, but that aint
the claim for your god; is it?
>>
>> If this is true, then for your god to permit the innocent to suffer in
>> these natural
>> disasters, is a paradox,
>
>No it isnt!
Yes it is.
> People
People are irrelevant, we are discussing a god.
> can also cause or fail to act on things they are capable
>of preventing . Whether they are omnipotent is NOT THE ISSUE!
>The issue is whether someoine who is CAPABLE OF PREVENTING SOMETHING and who
>does not prevent it is unreasonable!
>
>Clearly people are NOT unreasonable in every case that they refuse to act!
>
>
>>which can only resolve it's self as - A: it has the power, but
>> doesn't care, or is malevolent and wants the negative events to happen. In
>> which case, the
>> " loving and beneficent god.", is a lie.
>
>
>You need lessons in philosophy and logic!
>
Of course I do.
BTW, can you say, "Ad homonym."?
>
>>
>> Or,
>>
>> B: it does not have the ability to prevent it, so it is not omnipotent.
>>
>
>ASked and answered. go and get a qualification in philosophy or logic. You
>will deal with such issues very early on. I have already explained it but
>you continue to blindly follow your belief.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you keep changing the subject?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __God wants disasters to happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not do
>>>>> so not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt other
>>>>> people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>>
>>>WE are talkiong about people dying in suffereing and who is responsible.
>>>Natural disasters (in the twentieth century) at most kill millions over
>>>decades. Man made probalems kill hundreds of times that!
>>>
>>
>> Another straw man.
>
>No it isnt!
Yes it is.
> We are talking about the principle of being able to prevent
>something and not doing so!
>
Only in so far as it relates to your god.
>It isnt always evil to not act or to allow others their freedom even if they
>cauyse harm by having such freedom!
>
And what about those who are harmed, when your god could have prevented it?
Yes, a god, not people.
> Andpeople also
But only you are trying to include people, in order to avoid answering difficult questions
about your god.
>can prevent things which may cause harm. But God or people allowing such
>things to happen is NOT always wrong!
>
>>
>> There can be no comparison between the intervention of an all powerful
>> god, and the
>> limited intervention of a human.
>
>LOL! You are the one now reifying the argument!
>
Are you now denying your god, and claiming that it is merely an abstract?
>
>You are using the "for God it is different" argument.
Yes, but I am reversing it, it is only a fallacy, when used to excuse your god of
inaction, failure, etc.
I am pointing out how your mythology, proclaims your god to be capable of anything, but
cannot be shown to be responsible for anything useful, or compassionate.
>
>But that is the WHOLE PINT of Christianint isn't it? The point is that
>people CAN live like Christ and it is NOT different. No god powers are
>required!
>
Non sequitur.
>
>>
>> Your efforts to conflate the two, is it's self, a fallacy.
>>
>
>No it isnt!
Yes it is.
> the laws of reason and logic apply to god just as they do to
>man! Otherwist the iodea of a "fallacy" is of no value to any such argument
>since you claim falliicies do not apply to a God who does not have to live
>by any yardstick that man does!
And another straw man
>
>Please come back when yo accept the basic proinciples of logic and reason.
>
And again; can you say, "Ad homonym."?
Mavisbeacon
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:50:48 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>>> That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
>>> imaginary, fictional characters,
>>
>>WRONG! Jesus is a historical figure
>
> ...And your evidence for that assertion is ... What, Exactly?
Posted in other reply.
And you evidence for Socrates and Alewxander the Great is?
>
>
>
>> as a human being as well as any claims
>>of him being either a Prophet or of him being God.
>>
>>There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son
>>two
>>thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great or
>>Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
>
> So produce some of this objective evidence.
Posted in other reply.
Care to produce evidence for Socrates or Alexander?
>
>
>>
>>Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
>>
>>
>>>their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would
>>>employ
>>>as a response to certain physical stimuli.
>>
>>I have no idea what you mean by the above.
>>
>
> What: Not convenient?
No just not making any sense.
Mavisbeacon
> Mavisbeacon wrote:
>
>>>>>> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to
>>>>>> be Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used
>>>>>> them to prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own
>>>>>> rules of showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this
>>>>>> example god is able to act but does not if that action requires him
>>>>>> to use powers which are not within the capability of a human.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things
>>>>>> happening then people could not do the same as him could they?
>>>>>> How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance
>>>>>> his position?
>>>>> And more importantly, how much drag do you think Superman's cape has
>>>>> during his flight? Do you think he has to eat more in order to
>>>>> compensate for that loss of energy? And if so, what is the best food
>>>>> for a person from Krypton?
>>>> Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using
>>>> his super powers.
>>> That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
>>> imaginary, fictional characters,
>>
>> WRONG! Jesus is a historical figure as a human being as well as any
>> claims of him being either a Prophet or of him being God.
>
> And, of course, you'll provide evidence of that right here:
Yes indeed it is called the historicity of Jesus.
From the good old wikipedia:
With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of
biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from
Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was
accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman
Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.
^ Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave
(New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964; D. A.
Carson, et al., p. 50-56; Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the
Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108; John Dominic Crossan,
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant,
HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii; Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78, 166, 200;
Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred A. Knopf,
1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266; John P. Meier, vol. 1:68, 146, 199,
278, 386, 2:726; E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37.; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness
of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright, The Meaning of
Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83, 100-102, 222; Ben
Witherington III, pp. 12-20.
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________
>
>>
>> There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son
>> two thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great
>> or Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
>
> What's that got to do with anything?
Well you believe Alexander the Great or socrates existed don't you?
>There may be historicity and artifacts for hundreds of carpenters' sons,
>but that is beside the point.
Nope. We are discussing Jesus of Nazereth the person written about in the
Bible.
Not just any Carpenters son! and there is not to my knowledge much else
about any other carpenters sons from Nazareth about 2000 years ago!
>The Bible and consequently all of Christianity rests on the claim that
>Jesus was an offspring of a deity,
But that is NOT the issue you raised! The deity of christ and THE
HISTORICITY OF JESUS are two DIFFERENT subjects.
The exiostance of a MAN Jesus rather than an imaginary fictional charachter
is the issue your raised and NOT the claim that that man was also God!
> not some dime-a-dozen son of a carpenter.
But you have not other historical evidence for dozens of other carpenters
sons from Nazareth at that time do you?
>That is what the Bible claims.
But WHAT THE BIBLE CLAIMS is not the issue! The issue YOU raised was about
jesus being a fictional charachter. there is aas much evidence for him than
for other people that you accept existede and he was only a carpenters sonm
whereas the others may have been the greatest philosophers of all times opr
the Greatest Military rulers.
>If you are trying to say that Jesus could have been just a human being with
>no divine characteristics whatsoever, then who gives a shit?
Apparently YOU since YOU RAUISED THE ISSUE of Jesus being a fictional
charachter! I only pointed out unlike superman there is a historicity to
Jesus as a real person.
>That, if anything, disproves the biblical claims.
Actually NO it doesnt but it would be a heretical claim. But that is a
DIFFERENT ISSUE!
>
>>
>> Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
>
> Give it a few hundred years of memetics and some clever propaganda
> enforced by genocide and Superman can just as well become a person whose
> "historicity and artifacts" are indisputable.
Memetics itself is disputable. Dawkings has abandoned it and the Academic
Journal is not in publication anymore!
If you believe in memetics you believe in a false science.
>Look at Scientology and Mormonism.
What should I? I diodnt make any claims abut them or about Jesus being God!
YOU introduced that red herring.
>
>>> their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would
>>> employ as a response to certain physical stimuli.
>>
>> I have no idea what you mean by the above.
>
> Not my fault.
It is you seem incapable of using coherent English and a tenjdency to slide
into waffle qand gobbledigook with pseudo scientific leanings.
>>
>>>> The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to live just
>>>> like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to advance
>>>> his own position in normal life?
>>> There is no "question of principle" anywhere
>>
>> YES THERE ARE!
>
> Oh, well, I didn't realize you were going to use capital letters. All my
> bases are belong to you now.
It is clearly indicated above in plain English.
>
>
>> "that action requires him to use powers
>> which are not within the capability of a human."
>>
>> Or from the earlier discussion "whether refusal to act is just because
>> acting removes free will of the other person"
>>
>>> other than what you claim. I can also come up with a random question,
>>
>> My point was not random. It was directly related to the false analogy
>> of - God is either uncaring or impotent becuase God does not prevent
>> disasters.
>
> This, while interesting up to a point, is really a quite irrelevant
n o it isnt it is germane to the discussion and your claim that NO PRINCIPLE
is asserted in the above discussion!
> issue because in order to even be able to address it, one first has to
> show some, *any*, evidence for this alleged "God". So far, we've seen
> none. Until that happens, this "God" is as real as Superman.
You have not been following the discussion this has been dealt with already.
all Pink Giraffes eat leaves
Arnold is a pink Giraffe
We can logically conclude Arnold eats leaves whether or not Pink Giraffes
god or Superman exist!
The assumption was made by the OTHER poster that IF God exists then God is
not all powerful or callaus.
There were several logical fallacies in that reasoning which have been
pointed out.
>>
>>> say "Could Jesus also deflect bullets fired at him from modern firearms
>>> and, if so, why couldn't he deflect primitive rusty nails and thorns?",
>>> then call it the question of principle.
>>
>> If he was in fact God he COULD and he could also turn stones into bread.
>> But the very point is HE DIDNT - WHY didnt he?
>> Because the point is twofold
>> 1. He didnt act in a way which other humans could not emulate
>
> Then why did he multiply the fish, heal [some] blind people, resurrect
> [some] dead people and himself, iow he acted in a way which other humans
> could not emulate?
Other humans apparently COULD and DID perform miracles!
And Jesus Christ according to the stroy never did these things for his own
personal gain but as charitable acts.
>
>> 2. Because God does not intervene does not therefore mean God is callous.
>
> No, it means that he does not exist.
No it DOES NOT! If you do not intervene does that mean you do not exist?
>Not because of any of this academic logic, but because there is zero
>evidence for his existence and overwhelming evidence that there is nothing
>even remotely similar to what you call God.
Really?
What do you mean by "evidence"?
And where did I define God?
>
>>>>> If you don't beat your meat
>>>>> You can't have any pudding
>>>>> How can you have any pudding
>>>>> If you don't beat your meat?
>>>> Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
>>>> I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
>>> It's a free country - you do what makes you happy with your meat and
>>> I'll do what makes me happy with mine.
>>
>> But the quote is a MISQUOTE! it should be "eat your meat"
>
> Call the quote police.
Id prefer if you actually used proper english and didnt distort what people
stated.
>>
>> WHERE is a free country?
>
> You got a point there. Nowhere, really.
Where is this "nowhere" place?
If one can be free in thios nowhere place then care to give me directions?
>
> --
> If you don't beat your meat
> You can't have any pudding
> How can you have any pudding
> If you don't beat your meat?
You are misquoting Pink Floyd
Mavisbeacon
Not necessarily. One can have a tyranny of the majority.
>
> What people don't want, they won't pay for.
Choise of what you pay for and banning of something are DIFFERENT subjects.
You might not want to pay for child porn or Holocaust denial books.
>
> The fact that a need is felt to censor a thing, indicates that people DO
> want it.
WaNTS AND NEEDS ARE DIFFERENT THINGS! You might want to take Heroine but do
you really need to?
>
>
>
>> Is it therefore just?
>>Obviously when it comes to the group doing the banning or the group being
>>banned I know which group you want to be in!
>>
>>>
>>> Which makes you a hypocrite.
>>>
>>> ...Is that what your god is?
>>
>>How am I being hypocritical?
>>
>
> You tell us how much you care,
Where?
>yet when the situation arises whereby you have the ability,
> and the opportunity, to put your caring into action, you pass by on the
> other side of the
> road.
You are assuming intervention is always the best course for the caring
person.
You have not proved that.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So what is the point of prayer?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about
>>>>>>>>>> entirely different subjects?
>>>>>>>>>>c
>>>>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>>>>>>>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
>>>>>>>> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
>>>>>>>> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you
>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>> the event to happen?
>>>
>>> That, or I don't give a damn.
>>
>>You just contradicted yoor "YES" above.
>
> Reading for comprehension, aint your strong suit, is it, Mavis?
>
> It the above scenario, I am the one clouting the kids.
>
> How does my not caring if you batter your's, contradict my reply?
Because the specific example was of a general case! it makes no difference
if it is I YOU or any human or God for that matter.
The GENERAL point was about a BEING who can intervene and does not do so!
>
>>Clearly people may ALLOW others to do wrong because they tolerate them and
>>don't want to restrict their freedom to cause harm even if harm comes from
>>allowing others such freedom
>>
>
> But we are discussing a god, and natural disasters, not people.
No we are discussing a PRINCIPLE or non intervention of ANY BEING in general
who has the power to interven and does not intervene.
If you are claiming that "things are different for God" then the whole point
you are making falls on its face anyway.
If you are claiming a GENERAL standard or principle of not caring then yu
haVE TO ADOPT THAT POSITION.
>>
>>>
>>> Are we to take it then, that your god, doesn't give a damn?
>>
>>
>>Where did i say anything about MY god?
>>
>
> That is what we are discussing, that is what all of these silly analogies
> of your refer
> to.
No they refer to the PRINCIPLE of noin intervention by ANY being human alien
God (whether all powerful or just partially super human Zeus for example
should he exist).
>
> Or are you trying to change the subject?
No it is the principle advanced earlier on that God (or anyone else who can
intervene to stop disasters happen) is either uncaring or not omnipotent.
>
>>
>>I just pointed out about the other false analogy made. Please dont try to
>>"shift the burden".
>>That is another fallacy!
>>
>
> Word of advice: Don't use terminology, which you do not understand.
Look up "shift the burden" ! I didnt bring up the principle did I?
>
> That includes all assertions to fallacies, and references to logic.
I think you would do beter to address the argument about the above
porinciple in a logical manner than deign to hand out advice on reasoning.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The analogy id FALSE! Look up "excluded middle" . It is a fallacy!
>>>
>>> Binary propositions, are not always fallacies.
>>
>>True.
>>Assuming this one is not IS a fallacy!
I assume you understand that logic!
>>
>>>
>>> The christian churches propose a god which is all powerful, all
>>> knowing,
>>> all loving, all
>>> caring, all sweetness and light, etc, etc.
>>
>>Yes so?
>>
>>>
>>> How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent
>>> natural disasters, and
>>> injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which
>>> christians claim for
>>> it?
>>
>>I think I already answered that.
>
> I do not recall reading that.
I do.
Look up "argument from ignorance" while you are at it.
>
>> Intervention may remove free will.
>
> Where, in the bible, does it mention man having free will?
Where in the argument did i claim anythiong about the Bible stating
anything?
>
> The only place that freewill is mentioned in the bible, IIRC, is in
> Leviticus, and is
> referring to "freewill offerings". i.e. sacrifice.
So what?
>
>> Also it isnt the not intervening impliues not caring position you paint.
>
> Then what is it?
What is what?
Not intervening does not logically imply not caring! You have not shown it
does!
>
>
>
>> Asked and answered
>
> Well, asked, anyway.
The answer is above "not intervening does not imply not caring"
It does not follow!
>>
>>>
>>> The proposition is, of it's nature, binary; Either God, is all those
>>> good
>>> things, or it
>>> aint.
>>
>>Yes either God is good and reasonable or God is not.
>>
>>Because you dont stop someone from expressing their opinion that does not
>>make you unreasonable does it?
>
> Irrelevant, I am not omnipotent and omniscient.
So what? the only ability necessary for the above porinciple is the ABILITY
TO INTERVENE TO PREVENT SOME OUTCOME
>
>>
>>Do you believe in anti Holocaust denial laws for example or in censorship
>>or
>>holocaust deniers?
>>
>
> I know that such, exist; belief is irrelevant.
Do you believe they are correct laws and proper to have? I didnt ask whether
you believe they exist.
Believe and "believe in" are two different things.
Next I suppose you will say that if the Nazis had laws against Jews and
other that you know that such laws existed and belief in them is
irrelevant. Tell that to the ten million Holocaust victims!
>
>>>
>>> There is no middle, to exclude.
>>
>>If you CHANGE the princinple to "God is either Good or not Good) ther is
>>no
>>excluded middle.
>
> There is nothing to change, your god id either all good, or not all good:
Now you are back to MY god! Where did I define any God or say it was MINE?
>Or are you now
> going to invent gray areas, for your god.
Like you invented I made any claim at all about MY God?
Trying to "shift the burden" agains I see.
Where did I make such a claim?
>
>
>>
>>But the context was assuming "inteyrvention to stop suffering is always
>>good
>>and reasonable" . But that is not necessarily always true.
>>
>
> Suggest a scenario, where in, it is not good.
Interfering in the execution of Hitler is the usual philosophy 101 example
in ethics.
But Ill give you an example. suppose someone interferes in someone elses
free choise of religion and forces and atheist to send their child to a
Christian school.
And you can also take the corollary where a atheistic Statist interferes in
a christians free choice.
>
>>>
>>> The real fallacy here, is your insistence on using illogical analogies.
>>> You cannot
>>> compare the natural limitations of humanity, with the omniscience, and
>>> omnipotence, of
>>> your god.
>>
>>I never mantioned anything abut MY God! I only pointed out that the
>>position
>>that if an omnipotent God does not intervene that does not mean he
>>therefore
>>does not care.
>
> So you don't believe in this "God"(capitalised); Right?
Whether I do or not is not going to change the ruiles of logic!
One can discuss whether a pink elephant interfering is acceptable even iof
pink elephants do not exist?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>>>>> or he cannot prevent them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Who is Mitchell? you are babbling?
>
> You really are stupid, aren't you.
Ad hominem is no substitute for argument. You are the one who posted "
Perhaps it just don't give a damn, Mitchell"
Now you cant even explain what that means and resort to ad hominem!.
>
> " Mitchell", is the person who asked, " Which is it?"
>
> Don't you even look to see who you are talking to?
I prefer to refer tyo Holman but if you meant that Mitchell then thank you
pfor pointing that out.
It would also be unclear to anyone else reading the thread.
>
>>
>>Perhaps God does not care is a valid proposition however. But not
>>intervening DOES NOT LOGICALLY PROVE that proposition!
>>
>
> Unless you can offer some other logical reason why an all loving, all
> caring, all
> powerful, being would NOT intervene, given the world's history, and the
> atrocities
> committed in it's name, if no others, also, of course assuming that such a
> thing exists,
> then "God doesn't give a damn", must be the default position.
Buty I already DID SO! It is a theology 101 question - why does God allow
suffereing.
There are many possible reasons
-The existance of sin for example is dependant on the existance of free
choise.
If God allows free wil then god has to allow those with free will the
freedom to do wroing and hurt others.
Preventing such suffering would require remioving free will.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PleASE LOOK UP "EXCLUDED MIDDLE" AND "FALSE ANALOGY" ! It is not a
>>>>>> case of either it is A or B!
>>>>>> Your reasoninbg is simplistic.
>>>
>>> So you have learned a new phrase.
>>
>>I have referred to such fallacies for years!
>>y
>
> And yet, over the last several weeks, even when you have been faced with
> the excluded
> middle fallacies, you have not only not mentioned them, but have not
> recognised them.
Either God does not care or God has no power - is an excluded middle!
God might care and also have power or a god might not be all powerfull and
care or not care and not be all powerfull.
[snip]
>
>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, your use of it only serves to bring to mind, words like
>>> pot, kettle, and
>>> black arse.
>>
>>
>>I also used "ad hominem" before. Personbal attack wont prove your point !
>>In
>>fact is shows how desperate you are becoming.
>>
>
> Once again you use a term, incorrectly.
>
> Your line, "Your reasoninbg is simplistic.",is an ad homonym.
It isdnt a personal attack on YOU it is an attack on YOUR ARGUMENT or YOUR
REASONING!
>
> I, OTOH, was merely making an observation, completely aside from the
> subject matter of the
> debate.
you were making the observation and referring to ME by using the term "you"
three times in the preceeding sentence. and then associating ME with "arse"!
>
> An insult, if you understand that better.
Ad hominem is insult. IOt is an attack on the person rather then the
argument they raise!
>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Everything that happens
>>>>>>>>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>>>>>>>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>> Are you saying there are only two options?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you are saying that if someone is hitting a child either you can
>>>>>> stop them ot you want it to happen. Clearly this is a silly
>>>>>> proposition
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>anyone can see there are other options and possibilities?
>>>
>>> Straw man.
>>
>>NO! YOU are the one saying this binary position is the only possibility.
>>YOU
>>claim either the person (God or me or you)
>
> Diversion.
No Your claim is fallacious!
>
> We are only discussing your god.
Nope! YOU tried to CHANGE it to that! I never made any claim about MY God!
YOU are the one trying to claim that ans shift the burden to me!
If you make the claim it is for you to prove it! Please don't try to suggest
I made the claim about God being impotent or uncaring.
>
>
>> does not care or can not stop the
>>other person doing wrong (or something else bad like a disaster
>>happening).
>>
>
> As I said, only your god, or any god that you care to imagine, for that
> matter.
YOUR CLAIM!
>
>>
>>> We are not omnipotent, for us, there can be many reasons why we do not
>>> intervene, not
>>> least of which is the law of the land.
>>
>>But how would not being omnipotent change that when the position is WE CAN
>>INTERVENE AND HAVE THE POWER TO PREVENT THE ACT?
>>
>
> Straw man.
No! exactly the case raised! The point was either god (because he has the
power to intervene to stop an act) is not omnipotent or he doesnt care
becacause God does intervene.
>
> We are discussing your god, not mortals.
We are discussing whether ANY BEING refusing to intervene isa either
incapable or uncaring.
If you are claiming that there is a different set of logical rules for God
then logic is pointless in such an argument.
>>>
>>> Your god, OTOH, IS omnipotent, supposedly, and it is also touted as a
>>> loving and
>>> beneficent god.
>>
>>
>>So what even if God was of limited power and could only stop natural
>>disasters u to acertain size, the PRINCIPLE is the same!
>>
>
> No, it isn't.
Yes it is! If a PERSON can intervene and does not do so the principle is the
same!
If you reify the issue to only beings capable of stopping
>
> It is a question of ability, which is why your analogies, involving
> humans, are fallacies.
Yes ability to INTERCEDE TO PERVENT Something.
Look you were the one asking about following the discussion.
Isnt prayer meant to be for this intercession?
>
> You expect humans, with limited ability, to act, but excuse your god, with
> it's UNLIMITED
> ability, for not acting.
NO! I expect the SAME LOGIC to apply to both!
>
> If your god had only limited ability, then it's inaction would be
> excusable, but that aint
> the claim for your god; is it?
It isnt MY GOD we are discussing! And Inaction may or may not be
inexcusable.
>
>
>>>
>>> If this is true, then for your god to permit the innocent to suffer in
>>> these natural
>>> disasters, is a paradox,
>>
>>No it isnt!
>
> Yes it is.
No it isnt! Allowing suffering is not against reason. I mean the symbol of
Christ is about a man who suffered!
>
>
>
>
>> People
>
> People are irrelevant, we are discussing a god.
You are reifying the argument and assuming God has different logic!
>
>
>> can also cause or fail to act on things they are capable
>>of preventing . Whether they are omnipotent is NOT THE ISSUE!
>>The issue is whether someoine who is CAPABLE OF PREVENTING SOMETHING and
>>who
>>does not prevent it is unreasonable!
>>
>>Clearly people are NOT unreasonable in every case that they refuse to act!
>>
>>
>>>which can only resolve it's self as - A: it has the power, but
>>> doesn't care, or is malevolent and wants the negative events to happen.
>>> In
>>> which case, the
>>> " loving and beneficent god.", is a lie.
>>
>>
>>You need lessons in philosophy and logic!
>>
>
> Of course I do.
>
> BTW, can you say, "Ad homonym."?
I can spell "ad hominem"
>
>>
>>>
>>> Or,
>>>
>>> B: it does not have the ability to prevent it, so it is not omnipotent.
>>>
>>
>>ASked and answered. go and get a qualification in philosophy or logic. You
>>will deal with such issues very early on. I have already explained it but
>>you continue to blindly follow your belief.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you keep changing the subject?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __God wants disasters to happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> so not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> people.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>>>
>>>>WE are talkiong about people dying in suffereing and who is responsible.
>>>>Natural disasters (in the twentieth century) at most kill millions over
>>>>decades. Man made probalems kill hundreds of times that!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Another straw man.
>>
>>No it isnt!
>
> Yes it is.
No it isnt. Allowing suffereing ar causing suffering or by inaction causing
people to come to harm is germane to the discussion.
>
>
>> We are talking about the principle of being able to prevent
>>something and not doing so!
>>
>
> Only in so far as it relates to your god.
No0 I didnt bring in God. and if you reify the argument and say different
cases and rules apply to God then you lose it already!
>
>>It isnt always evil to not act or to allow others their freedom even if
>>they
>>cauyse harm by having such freedom!
>>
>
> And what about those who are harmed, when your god could have prevented
> it?
It isnt always evil to not act or to allow others their freedom even if they
cauyse harm by having such freedom!
In fact according to the Christians Christ himself suffered.
Yes they can! People can prevent famine and plague and tsunamis killing
people!
>
>
>> Andpeople also
>
> But only you are trying to include people, in order to avoid answering
> difficult questions
> about your god.
No!
1. I didnt introduce MY god
2. If the argument for god is a seperate case you cant apply reason logic
morals or ethics to that specific case and assume the same ethics apply for
all other cases!
You can only accuse God of not caring or having double stabndards when the
standard applied to WHAT EXTENT OTHER PEOPLE would be judged for doing the
same.
>
>
>
>>can prevent things which may cause harm. But God or people allowing such
>>things to happen is NOT always wrong!
>>
>>>
>>> There can be no comparison between the intervention of an all powerful
>>> god, and the
>>> limited intervention of a human.
>>
>>LOL! You are the one now reifying the argument!
>>
>
> Are you now denying your god, and claiming that it is merely an abstract?
>
>
>>
>>You are using the "for God it is different" argument.
>
> Yes, but I am reversing it, it is only a fallacy, when used to excuse
> your god of
> inaction, failure, etc.
>
> I am pointing out how your mythology, proclaims your god to be capable of
> anything, but
> cannot be shown to be responsible for anything useful, or compassionate.
>
>
>>
>>But that is the WHOLE POINT of Christianity isn't it? The point is that
>>people CAN live like Christ and it is NOT different. No god powers are
>>required!
>>
>
> Non sequitur.
Hiow does it not follow?
You cant have UNIVERSAL standards of compassion and also say that
circumstances for it are DIFFERENT for God!
>
>>
>>>
>>> Your efforts to conflate the two, is it's self, a fallacy.
>>>
>>
>>No it isnt!
>
> Yes it is.
No it isnt !it is called having the same moral ethical and logical
standards!
>
>
>> the laws of reason and logic apply to god just as they do to
>>man! Otherwist the iodea of a "fallacy" is of no value to any such
>>argument
>>since you claim falliicies do not apply to a God who does not have to live
>>by any yardstick that man does!
>
> And another straw man
It is the EXACT point you raise! You are claiming that god is a special case
which is wholly unlike man. then when you cite the case you judge it based
on UNIVERSSAL non spoecial case standards!
>
>>
>>Please come back when yo accept the basic proinciples of logic and reason.
>>
> And again; can you say, "Ad homonym."?
Whatever you are like i can only rely on logic and reason. If you cant follw
logic I cant help you.
Alan Ford
Quoting "scholars in the fields of biblical studies" as evidence for the
alleged historicity of Jesus makes as much sense as quoting "scholars"
of any parochial human endeavor on anything.
Iow, I can find you serious and academically credentialed "scholars" who
can likewise "prove" Mohammed's claims, phrenology, white race
supremacy, Arianism, existence of ghosts and extraterrestrial aliens,
homeopathy, crystal healing, spoon bending, etc.
If you have actual evidence for the existence of Jesus, i.e. anything
other than what's been written in the Gospels, present it here:
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
>>> There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son
>>> two thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great
>>> or Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
>> What's that got to do with anything?
>
> Well you believe Alexander the Great or socrates existed don't you?
Their existence is well documented in several independent sources and
most importantly, there is nothing extraordinary about the existence of
warlords and philosophers. Jesus, otoh, is claimed to be a deity's
offspring slash deity himself. This, according to the only source of his
existence - the Bible. There is no other source.
>> There may be historicity and artifacts for hundreds of carpenters' sons,
>> but that is beside the point.
>
> Nope. We are discussing Jesus of Nazereth the person written about in the
> Bible.
> Not just any Carpenters son! and there is not to my knowledge much else
> about any other carpenters sons from Nazareth about 2000 years ago!
And? Where, other than in the Bible, which is proven to be as reliable
record of history as The Lord Of The rings, is your evidence for this
alleged son of an ancient Jewish tribe god?
>
>> The Bible and consequently all of Christianity rests on the claim that
>> Jesus was an offspring of a deity,
>
>
> But that is NOT the issue you raised! The deity of christ and THE
> HISTORICITY OF JESUS are two DIFFERENT subjects.
> The exiostance of a MAN Jesus rather than an imaginary fictional charachter
> is the issue your raised and NOT the claim that that man was also God!
The issue cannot be separated because the Bible is the *only* "document"
about Jesus' existence. Therefore, if you want to rely on the Bible, you
have to take all of its claims equally and since the Bible claims Jesus'
divine origin, this is inseparable from the issue of his historicity.
Btw, the Bible has been caught in obvious lies hundreds of times, so
pretty much anything that is written there is subject to scrutiny, if
not outright ridicule. Therefore, to insist that somehow the claim that
Jesus was a real person (while even Paul is not much sure about that) is
credible, while putting aside the laughable claim about his divinity, is
to make a mockery of the whole process of unwrapping history.
>> not some dime-a-dozen son of a carpenter.
>
> But you have not other historical evidence for dozens of other carpenters
> sons from Nazareth at that time do you?
Why would it be needed? There is no dispute that thousands of people
used to be carpenters and most of them had sons. What is so
extraordinary about that?
>
>
>> That is what the Bible claims.
>
> But WHAT THE BIBLE CLAIMS is not the issue! The issue YOU raised was about
> jesus being a fictional charachter. there is aas much evidence for him than
> for other people that you accept existede and he was only a carpenters sonm
> whereas the others may have been the greatest philosophers of all times opr
> the Greatest Military rulers.
Where is this evidence you so loudly trumpet? Post here any evidence
that does not come from the Bible (listing Wikipedia names doesn't cut it):
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>> If you are trying to say that Jesus could have been just a human being with
>> no divine characteristics whatsoever, then who gives a shit?
>
> Apparently YOU since YOU RAUISED THE ISSUE of Jesus being a fictional
> charachter! I only pointed out unlike superman there is a historicity to
> Jesus as a real person.
Where is it, then? And, more importantly, why is his actual existence to
be believed and his divinity put aside, if not denied? What is the point
of cherry-picking the Bible?
>
>> That, if anything, disproves the biblical claims.
>
> Actually NO it doesnt but it would be a heretical claim. But that is a
> DIFFERENT ISSUE!
Everything is a different issue to you. There is only one issue: you
claim that Jesus existed, you provide the evidence. The Bible doesn't
count as evidence due to well documented facts about how, when and by
whom it was written. You need a supporting source. Name one.
>
>>> Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
>> Give it a few hundred years of memetics and some clever propaganda
>> enforced by genocide and Superman can just as well become a person whose
>> "historicity and artifacts" are indisputable.
>
>
> Memetics itself is disputable.
Really? How do you think religions, superstitions, fashion fads, music
trends, cultural developments, societal changes, etc, get started?
Memetics is what makes us humans.
> Dawkings has abandoned it and the Academic
> Journal is not in publication anymore!
> If you believe in memetics you believe in a false science.
Sure, whatever gets you through the night.
>> Look at Scientology and Mormonism.
>
> What should I? I diodnt make any claims abut them or about Jesus being God!
> YOU introduced that red herring.
No, the Bible and every Christian on the face of the Earth did. I simply
say that there is no extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Period. Therefore, why should we take his alleged existence for granted?
Sure, they may have been a person called Jesus in Galilee some time in
the first century who happened to be a son of a carpenter. What about
it? The Bible doesn't claim that - it goes way further in the claim.
To insist on your position is to insist that the historicity of Superman
is real. And, using your method, it is. There is a man in Malaysia whose
name is Superman. I've seen it on the Internet. Therefore, according to
your criteria, Superman exists.
>
>>>> their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would
>>>> employ as a response to certain physical stimuli.
>>> I have no idea what you mean by the above.
>> Not my fault.
>
> It is you seem incapable of using coherent English and a tenjdency to slide
> into waffle qand gobbledigook with pseudo scientific leanings.
Get some education, read a little more, learn to spell and perhaps one
day you'll be able to understand this incoherent English that people use.
>>>>> The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to live just
>>>>> like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to advance
>>>>> his own position in normal life?
>>>> There is no "question of principle" anywhere
>>> YES THERE ARE!
>> Oh, well, I didn't realize you were going to use capital letters. All my
>> bases are belong to you now.
>
> It is clearly indicated above in plain English.
Like I sad, all my bases are belong to you. ZOMG, you pwned me!!!!1111!!11!!
>>> "that action requires him to use powers
>>> which are not within the capability of a human."
>>>
>>> Or from the earlier discussion "whether refusal to act is just because
>>> acting removes free will of the other person"
>>>
>>>> other than what you claim. I can also come up with a random question,
>>> My point was not random. It was directly related to the false analogy
>>> of - God is either uncaring or impotent becuase God does not prevent
>>> disasters.
>> This, while interesting up to a point, is really a quite irrelevant
>
> n o it isnt it is germane to the discussion and your claim that NO PRINCIPLE
> is asserted in the above discussion!
The discussion, as far as I can tell, was about two things: one - about
this alleged god's involvement in his "creation" and two - whether this
alleged god's son existence is historically accurate but only to the
extent that he was a regular human.
>> issue because in order to even be able to address it, one first has to
>> show some, *any*, evidence for this alleged "God". So far, we've seen
>> none. Until that happens, this "God" is as real as Superman.
>
> You have not been following the discussion this has been dealt with already.
> all Pink Giraffes eat leaves
> Arnold is a pink Giraffe
>
> We can logically conclude Arnold eats leaves whether or not Pink Giraffes
> god or Superman exist!
Like I said, there have been two distinct threads of thought in this
exchange, one barely having to do with another.
Hence, your example is disingenuous.
> The assumption was made by the OTHER poster that IF God exists then God is
> not all powerful or callaus.
A perfectly logical counterclaim considering the believers' claims about
the characteristics of the alleged gods. One would have to be an idiot
not to raise it. However, nothing earth shattering and revolutionary.
This was raised well in the age of the ancient Greek philosophers. What
of it?
>
>
> There were several logical fallacies in that reasoning which have been
> pointed out.
No, there weren't. The Epicurus' trillema is quite elementary and no
amount of hand waving by Christians or any other religionists about
"free will" can put it under the rug.
>>>> say "Could Jesus also deflect bullets fired at him from modern firearms
>>>> and, if so, why couldn't he deflect primitive rusty nails and thorns?",
>>>> then call it the question of principle.
>>> If he was in fact God he COULD and he could also turn stones into bread.
>>> But the very point is HE DIDNT - WHY didnt he?
>>> Because the point is twofold
>>> 1. He didnt act in a way which other humans could not emulate
>> Then why did he multiply the fish, heal [some] blind people, resurrect
>> [some] dead people and himself, iow he acted in a way which other humans
>> could not emulate?
>
> Other humans apparently COULD and DID perform miracles!
1. You said "he didn't act in a way which other humans could not
emulate", not me.
2. You actually believe that people can and do perform deeds that go
against every physical law that is known to us?
> And Jesus Christ according to the stroy never did these things for his own
> personal gain but as charitable acts.
How is that relevant? Superman did, too.
>>> 2. Because God does not intervene does not therefore mean God is callous.
>> No, it means that he does not exist.
>
> No it DOES NOT! If you do not intervene does that mean you do not exist?
Read Christians' claims about their alleged god's omnipotence and
benevolence, then insert into the Epicurus' trillema.
>> Not because of any of this academic logic, but because there is zero
>> evidence for his existence and overwhelming evidence that there is nothing
>> even remotely similar to what you call God.
>
> Really?
Yes.
> What do you mean by "evidence"?
??? Are you serious?
> And where did I define God?
I don't know. How is that relevant? We are talking Yahweh/Jesus, the
Christian god, aren't we? He's well defined elsewhere.
>>>>>> If you don't beat your meat
>>>>>> You can't have any pudding
>>>>>> How can you have any pudding
>>>>>> If you don't beat your meat?
>>>>> Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
>>>>> I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
>>>> It's a free country - you do what makes you happy with your meat and
>>>> I'll do what makes me happy with mine.
>>> But the quote is a MISQUOTE! it should be "eat your meat"
>> Call the quote police.
>
> Id prefer if you actually used proper english and didnt distort what people
> stated.
And I'd prefer to be the king of the world, but it's not happening any
time soon.
>>> WHERE is a free country?
>> You got a point there. Nowhere, really.
>
> Where is this "nowhere" place?
In the Beatles song.
> If one can be free in thios nowhere place then care to give me directions?
Sure, go ten miles south, turn right, hang on to your left, make a sharp
left when you see a bait shop, then go fuck yourself.
Mavisbeacon
is Misquoting the words "AND HISTORY"
> as evidence for the alleged historicity of Jesus makes as much sense as
> quoting "scholars" of any parochial human endeavor on anything.
> Iow, I can find you serious and academically credentialed "scholars"
Bullshit! It is unlikely you can produce ANY historical scholars with the
credentials of Crossan or Price!
The Price position, put forward works such as the 2005 documentary The God
Who Wasn't There, is very rare among Historians and Bible scholars.
>who can likewise "prove" Mohammed's claims, phrenology, white race
>supremacy, Arianism, existence of ghosts and extraterrestrial aliens,
>homeopathy, crystal healing, spoon bending, etc.
No you can't! I doubt you can provide one single paper in a peer reviewed
journal which attests to any of thoise things except perhaps the claim about
Mohammad who also has a historicity!
>
> If you have actual evidence for the existence of Jesus, i.e. anything
> other than what's been written in the Gospels, present it here:
I did!
Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave
(New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964; D. A.
Carson, et al., p. 50-56; Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the
Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108; John Dominic Crossan,
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant,
HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii; Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78, 166, 200;
Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred A. Knopf,
1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266; John P. Meier, vol. 1:68, 146, 199,
278, 386, 2:726; E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37.; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness
of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright, The Meaning of
Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83, 100-102, 222; Ben
Witherington III, pp. 12-20.
G�za Vermes is a British scholar of Jewish Hungarian origin and writer on
religious history, particularly Jewish and Christian. He is a noted
authority on the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient works in Aramaic, and on
the life and religion of Jesus. Some describe him as the greatest Jesus
scholar of his time
Outside the Gospels there are other Biblical writings:
The Acts of the apostles and various epistles.
Then there are non Biblical writings Gnostic and apocryphal tests.
Then there are Early Christian sources outside the New Testament also
mention Jesus and details of his life. Important texts from the Apostolic
Fathers are, to name just the most significant and ancient, Clement of Rome
(c. 100), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107-110),[and Justin Martyr.
Perhaps the most significant Patristic sources are the early references of
Papias and Quadratus (d. 124), mostly reported by Eusebius in the fourth
century, which both mention eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry and healings who
were still alive in their own time (the late first century).
There are passages relevant to Christianity in the works of four major
non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries - Josephus,
Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally
references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Mind you if
Christians follow christ they must have believed in Jesus being Christ.
Mara was a Syrian Stoic. While imprisoned by the Romans, Mara wrote a letter
to his son that includes the following text --
For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death,
seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or
the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour
the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder
of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven
away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of
all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos
were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation
and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land. Nay,
Socrates did "not" die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the
statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he
enacted. [//http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.ix.xvii.html
There is one reference to Thallus having written about events beyond 109 BC.
Julius Africanus, writing c. 221, while writing about the crucifixion of
Jesus, mentioned Thallus. Thus:
On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks
were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts
were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls
(as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun.[109]
Lucian, a second century Romano-Syrian satirist, who wrote in Greek, wrote:
The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished
personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that
account. You see, these misguided creatures start with the general
conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt
of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and
then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all
brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of
Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws
Irenaeus, according to Robert McQueen Grant (Professor of New Testament and
Early Christianity, The University of Chicago), not only claimed that Jesus
was at least 49 years old when he was crucified in Book 2 Chapter 22
paragraph 6 of Against Heresies but expressly made Pontius Pilate governor
under Claudius Caesar (41-54) in paragraph 74 of his Demonstration Grant
points out "if he lived to be forty or fifty, the crucifixion had to have
take place under Caligula (37-41) or Claudius (41-54)" but explains that
"Irenaeus is unduly concerned with his speculative point about ages"[Celsus
wrote, about 180, a book against the Christians, which is now only known
through Origen's refutation of it. Celsus apparently accused Jesus of being
a child and a sorcerer and is quoted as saying that Jesus was a "mere man".
Celsus wrote, about 180, a book against the Christians, which is now only
known through Origen's refutation of it. Celsus apparently accused Jesus of
being a child and a sorcerer and is quoted as saying that Jesus was a "mere
man".
The Acts of Pilate is purportedly an official document from Pilate reporting
events in Judea to the Emperor Tiberius (thus, it would have been among the
commentaii principis). It was mentioned by Justin Martyr, in his First
Apology (c. 150) to Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus. He
said that his claims concerning Jesus' crucifixion, and some miracles, could
be verified by referencing the official record, the "Acts of Pontius
Pilate". With the exception of Tertullian, no other writer is known to have
mentioned the work, and Tertullian's reference says that Tiberius debated
the details of Jesus' life before the Roman Senate, an event that is almost
universally considered absurd. There is a later apocryphal text, undoubtedly
fanciful, by the same name, and though it is generally thought to have been
inspired by Justin's reference (and thus to post-date his Apology), it is
possible that Justin actually mentioned this text, though that would give
the work an unusually early date and therefore is not a straightforward
identification.
All the above from wikipedia with over 100 back up references.
then there are Jewish records
It is a valid academic field and you can scarcely argue Socrates or
Alexander has more evidence!
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________________________
>
>
>>>> There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son
>>>> two thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the
>>>> Great or Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before
>>>> that.
>>> What's that got to do with anything?
>>
>> Well you believe Alexander the Great or socrates existed don't you?
>
> Their existence is well documented in several independent sources
LOL! REally? WHAT independent sources?
You are the one asking for evidence for Christ in history and I have
provided sources to over ahundred references of all sorts of writers and
accuts from the time of Jesus.
What doccument do you have showing the independent accounts of Alexander or
socrates written whn they were alive or written by historians withing fifty
years of them dying?
>and most importantly, there is nothing extraordinary about the existence of
>warlords and philosophers.
Wher is your evidece for the existance of Alexander the Great or Socrates?
>Jesus, otoh, is claimed to be a deity's offspring slash deity himself.
WRONG! the historicity of Jesus is about the existance of a man in history.
The CHRIST element is a different thing. whether or not the man was also God
is a DIFFERENT ISSUE to whether the man existed in history!
People believed alexander the Great was a God. Does that mean if he was not
a God that he didn't exist?
>This, according to the only source of his existence - the Bible. There is
>no other source.
Wrong! You have been shown several above!
Wher is your source for the existance of Alexander or Socrates?
>
>>> There may be historicity and artifacts for hundreds of carpenters' sons,
>>> but that is beside the point.
>>
>> Nope. We are discussing Jesus of Nazereth the person written about in the
>> Bible.
>> Not just any Carpenters son! and there is not to my knowledge much else
>> about any other carpenters sons from Nazareth about 2000 years ago!
>
> And? Where, other than in the Bible, which is proven to be as reliable
> record of history as The Lord Of The rings, is your evidence for this
> alleged son of an ancient Jewish tribe god?
Lord of the Rings mentions NOTHING about ancient history!
The Bible does!
But the other non biblical evidence is above!
Where is your evidence for Socrates?
>
>>
>>> The Bible and consequently all of Christianity rests on the claim that
>>> Jesus was an offspring of a deity,
>>
>>
>> But that is NOT the issue you raised! The deity of christ and THE
>> HISTORICITY OF JESUS are two DIFFERENT subjects.
>> The exiostance of a MAN Jesus rather than an imaginary fictional
>> charachter is the issue your raised and NOT the claim that that man was
>> also God!
>
> The issue cannot be separated
Yes it CAN! YOUR CLAIM that no such historical fugure existed is less likely
then Socrates or alexander not existing.
>because the Bible is the *only* "document" about Jesus' existence.
No it isnt! ther are a plethora of texts aboivein addition to the wide
Biblical references in different books.
>Therefore, if you want to rely on the Bible, you have to take all of its
>claims equally and since the Bible claims Jesus' divine origin,
No. aprochycal and gnostic texts make heretical claims like Jesus being man.
IF you knew about eARLY HErSIES YOU WOULD BE AWARE OF THAT.
>this is inseparable from the issue of his historicity.
No it isnt! LOL! You sound like a theologian who argued on monism and
materialism!
> Btw, the Bible has been caught in obvious lies hundreds of times,
Btw that is an unsupported throwaway phrase and not elated in any way to the
CLAIM YOU MADE about Jesus not existing in history!
>so pretty much anything that is written there is subject to scrutiny, if
>not outright ridicule.
I spite of you being unsupported and wrong you can even leave the Bible
aside and you still have a plethora of historical references above!
>Therefore, to insist that somehow the claim that Jesus was a real person
>(while even Paul is not much sure about that) is credible, while putting
>aside the laughable claim about his divinity, is to make a mockery of the
>whole process of unwrapping history.
Your reasoning is based on
1. the Bible being the only source and
2. The Bible being treated as not referring to history if it claims
divinity.
so a poersian text saying that a God alexander came is also NOT evidence for
Alexander? LOL!
>
>>> not some dime-a-dozen son of a carpenter.
>>
>> But you have not other historical evidence for dozens of other carpenters
>> sons from Nazareth at that time do you?
>
> Why would it be needed?
Because you claimed "dime a dozen carperter"
>There is no dispute that thousands of people used to be carpenters and most
>of them had sons. What is so extraordinary about that?
It is extraordinary that there was more then one Jesus the carpenters son
from Nazareth at that time.
>>
>>
>>> That is what the Bible claims.
>>
>> But WHAT THE BIBLE CLAIMS is not the issue! The issue YOU raised was
>> about jesus being a fictional charachter. there is aas much evidence for
>> him than for other people that you accept existede and he was only a
>> carpenters sonm whereas the others may have been the greatest
>> philosophers of all times opr the Greatest Military rulers.
>
> Where is this evidence you so loudly trumpet?
I posted the reference to it and I reposted some of it above.
>Post here any evidence that does not come from the Bible (listing Wikipedia
>names doesn't cut it):
I posted the article title And I didnt just list names I listed the Major
publications claiming Historicity for Jesus and the books from which they
came and the page numbers in those books wher the claims were made!
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>>
>>
>>> If you are trying to say that Jesus could have been just a human being
>>> with no divine characteristics whatsoever, then who gives a shit?
>>
>> Apparently YOU since YOU RAUISED THE ISSUE of Jesus being a fictional
>> charachter! I only pointed out unlike superman there is a historicity to
>> Jesus as a real person.
>
> Where is it, then?
I posted spome of it above!
Wher is YOUR EVIDENCE for Socrates or Alexander?
>And, more importantly, why is his actual existence to be believed and his
>divinity put aside, if not denied?
Because YOU CLAIMED something sabout Jesus not existing in history!
>What is the point of cherry-picking the Bible?
As I showed you you can leave out the Bible altogether! The is still more
evidence!
>
>>
>>> That, if anything, disproves the biblical claims.
>>
>> Actually NO it doesnt but it would be a heretical claim. But that is a
>> DIFFERENT ISSUE!
>
> Everything is a different issue to you.
No a heretical claim of Jesus existing but not being God would be published
but the Church would not acept such a claim. They would regard such claims
as heresy and such wriotings would not be allowed intot eh Bible. they would
become heretical or Apocrypohal works OUTSIDE OF the Bible!
>There is only one issue: you claim that Jesus existed, you provide the
>evidence.
No I siddnt! I claimed that there is ahistoricioty to Jesus and probably
more evidence for Jesus than for socrates or Alexander.
>The Bible doesn't count as evidence due to well documented facts about how,
>when and by whom it was written.
Actually it DOES count as evidence but even leaving it aside ther are non
Biblical references.
>You need a supporting source. Name one.
I stopped at reference 128 above!
>
>>
>>>> Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
>>> Give it a few hundred years of memetics and some clever propaganda
>>> enforced by genocide and Superman can just as well become a person whose
>>> "historicity and artifacts" are indisputable.
>>
>>
>> Memetics itself is disputable.
>
> Really? How do you think religions, superstitions, fashion fads, music
> trends, cultural developments, societal changes, etc, get started?
Seperate issue. If you are claiming that it is explained by memetics the
field has had problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
Luis Benitez-Bribiesca, a critic of memetics, calls it "a pseudoscientific
dogma" and "a dangerous idea that poses a threat to the serious study of
conciousness and cultural evolution" among other things. As factual
criticism, he refers to the lack of a code script for memes, as the DNA is
for genes, and to the fact that the meme mutation mechanism (i.e., an idea
going from one brain to another) is too unstable (low replication accuracy
and high mutation rate), which would render the evolutionary process
chaotic.[3]
Another critique comes from semiotics, (e.g., Deacon[4], Kull[5]) stating
that the concept of meme is a primitivized concept of Sign. Meme is thus
described in memetics as a sign without its triadic nature. In other words,
meme is a degenerate sign, which includes only its ability of being copied.
Accordingly, in the broadest sense, the objects of copying are memes,
whereas the objects of translation and interpretation are signs.
> Memetics is what makes us humans.
So you seem to believe? That come from the Bible of Dawkings did it?
>
>> Dawkings has abandoned it and the Academic Journal is not in publication
>> anymore!
>> If you believe in memetics you believe in a false science.
>
> Sure, whatever gets you through the night.
It is pseudo science and an unsupperted belief according to Bribiesca!
>
>>> Look at Scientology and Mormonism.
>>
>> What should I? I diodnt make any claims abut them or about Jesus being
>> God! YOU introduced that red herring.
>
> No, the Bible and every Christian on the face of the Earth did.
If Christians believe Christ is god that as NOTHING to do with the academic
field of study about Jesus existing!
Likewise Christians dint believe Mohammad was a prophet but that does not
mean they do not believe Mohammad never existed!
>I simply say that there is no extra-biblical evidence for the existence of
>Jesus.
Thee is! It is above!
> Period. Therefore, why should we take his alleged existence for granted?
> Sure, they may have been a person called Jesus in Galilee some time in the
> first century who happened to be a son of a carpenter. What about it?
WEll above you said no such person existed!
The Bible doesn't claim that - it goes way further in the claim.
> To insist on your position is to insist that the historicity of Superman
> is real. And, using your method, it is. There is a man in Malaysia whose
> name is Superman. I've seen it on the Internet. Therefore, according to
> your criteria, Superman exists.
>
>>
>>>>> their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would
>>>>> employ as a response to certain physical stimuli.
>>>> I have no idea what you mean by the above.
>>> Not my fault.
>>
>> It is you seem incapable of using coherent English and a tenjdency to
>> slide into waffle qand gobbledigook with pseudo scientific leanings.
>
[snip ]
No it isnt! God could be limited in power but even assuming all powerful
that does not imply that failure to use power asises out of not caring.
> One would have to be an idiot not to raise it. However, nothing earth
> shattering and revolutionary. This was raised well in the age of the
> ancient Greek philosophers. What of it?
>>
>>
>> There were several logical fallacies in that reasoning which have been
>> pointed out.
>
> No, there weren't. The Epicurus' trillema is quite elementary and no
> amount of hand waving by Christians or any other religionists about "free
> will" can put it under the rug.
a god might not be all powerful
Allowing something might not be evil.
>
>>>>> say "Could Jesus also deflect bullets fired at him from modern
>>>>> firearms and, if so, why couldn't he deflect primitive rusty nails and
>>>>> thorns?", then call it the question of principle.
>>>> If he was in fact God he COULD and he could also turn stones into
>>>> bread.
>>>> But the very point is HE DIDNT - WHY didnt he?
>>>> Because the point is twofold
>>>> 1. He didnt act in a way which other humans could not emulate
>>> Then why did he multiply the fish, heal [some] blind people, resurrect
>>> [some] dead people and himself, iow he acted in a way which other humans
>>> could not emulate?
>>
>> Other humans apparently COULD and DID perform miracles!
>
> 1. You said "he didn't act in a way which other humans could not emulate",
> not me.
> 2. You actually believe that people can and do perform deeds that go
> against every physical law that is known to us?
What I believe is beside the point. whether Jesus being Christ and having
God powers performing miracles is consistant with the use of power only to
help others is the point.
>
>> And Jesus Christ according to the stroy never did these things for his
>> own personal gain but as charitable acts.
>
> How is that relevant? Superman did, too.
Yes if Superman used his powers for self gain (and his does sometimes to
keep his identity hidden) then he would not be altruistic.
And dont tell me Superman is fictionl! Jesus ISNT! If you care claiming
Jesus the man is also God that might be fictiuon but you are making a claim
about the MAN!
>
>>>> 2. Because God does not intervene does not therefore mean God is
>>>> callous.
>>> No, it means that he does not exist.
>>
>> No it DOES NOT! If you do not intervene does that mean you do not exist?
>
> Read Christians' claims about their alleged god's omnipotence and
> benevolence, then insert into the Epicurus' trillema.
But you are back to claiming Jesus is God! The original claim by you was not
that Jesus is not god but that the MAN never existed!
You are conflating Christology with Historicity of Jesus.
>
>>> Not because of any of this academic logic, but because there is zero
>>> evidence for his existence and overwhelming evidence that there is
>>> nothing even remotely similar to what you call God.
>>
>> Really?
>
> Yes.
>
>> What do you mean by "evidence"?
>
> ??? Are you serious?
Yes what sort of evidence would you want?
HAve you scientific evidence for Love?
What are the SI units involved?
What evidence do you have that the Mona Lisa is a good painting?
Can you prove a song is good or a sunset is beautiful?
>> And where did I define God?
>
> I don't know. How is that relevant? We are talking Yahweh/Jesus, the
> Christian god, aren't we? He's well defined elsewhere.
No. YOU CLAIMED about what I call god. Where did I call Jesus God?
I pointed out about historicity of Jesus - NOTHING TO DO with whether he was
god or not!
>
>>>>>>> If you don't beat your meat
>>>>>>> You can't have any pudding
>>>>>>> How can you have any pudding
>>>>>>> If you don't beat your meat?
>>>>>> Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
>>>>>> I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is
>>>>>> "eat"!
>>>>> It's a free country - you do what makes you happy with your meat and
>>>>> I'll do what makes me happy with mine.
>>>> But the quote is a MISQUOTE! it should be "eat your meat"
>>> Call the quote police.
>>
>> Id prefer if you actually used proper english and didnt distort what
>> people stated.
>
> And I'd prefer to be the king of the world, but it's not happening any
> time soon.
Ironically you justy also misquoted the only existing contemporary writing I
am aware of from alexander the Great.
Wher is your evidence for him or socrates?
>
>>>> WHERE is a free country?
>>> You got a point there. Nowhere, really.
>>
>> Where is this "nowhere" place?
>
> In the Beatles song.
I am attempting to point out the inablility to conceive "nothing".
Mitchell Holman
news:dbacb$4af85cbd$bc8d1d47$28...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Puck Greenman" <dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:q0fgf55ca66vmm3an...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 23:24:22 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>>
>> How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent
>> natural disasters, and
>> injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which
>> christians claim for
>> it?
>
> I think I already answered that. Intervention may remove free will.
How is "free will" removed by God not causing
a tsunami to strike a populated shoreline?
> Also it isnt the not intervening impliues not caring position you
> paint.
If God cares about innocent life why does he
do nothing as thousands of innocents die needlessly?
Mitchell Holman
news:p05hf5pk2tb5vhto2...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 05:42:04 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 8, 6:55�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:12:34 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>> <noem...@comcast.net>
>>> > � �If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
>>> >hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>>
>>> No, he made the elements that can become tornadoes, hurricanes and
>>> earthquakes.
>>
>>Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
>>present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
>
>>1. Exists
>
> The scientific evidence: The big bang.
>
The big bang is evidence of the big bang.
That's all.
Mavisbeacon
> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
> news:dbacb$4af85cbd$bc8d1d47$28...@news.upc.ie:
>
>>
>> "Puck Greenman" <dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:q0fgf55ca66vmm3an...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 23:24:22 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent
>>> natural disasters, and
>>> injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which
>>> christians claim for
>>> it?
>>
>> I think I already answered that. Intervention may remove free will.
>
>
> How is "free will" removed by God not causing
> a tsunami to strike a populated shoreline?
In the general case freedom may be removed by intervention.
As to the specific case - there are countless science fiction stories and
movies which enable someone to go back and change the past only to find out
that "fixing things" caused unexpected consequences.
>
>
>> Also it isnt the not intervening impliues not caring position you
>> paint.
>
>
> If God cares about innocent life why does he
> do nothing as thousands of innocents die needlessly?
Well this is much the same question.
And the standard answers are:
1. He does not always do nothing.
2. He has equipped humans with the ability to do something for themselves
and wont intervene to remove that ability.
And the statement is loaded since you assume "innocent" and "needless" death
Are ALL the people whio die in a disaster innocent? Is there no one in the
whole of history you think needed to die?
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:p05hf5pk2tb5vhto2...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 05:42:04 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
>> <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 8, 6:55�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:12:34 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>>>> <noem...@comcast.net>
>>>> > � �If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
>>>> >hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>>>
>>>> No, he made the elements that can become tornadoes, hurricanes and
>>>> earthquakes.
>>>
>>>Fine, you've made a positive claim for this god of yours. Now please
>>>present your objective and/or scientific evidence that this god:
>>
>>>1. Exists
>>
>> The scientific evidence: The big bang.
>>
>
>
> The big bang is evidence of the big bang.
>
> That's all.
The big bang is evidence of creation. That was a very unlearned statement on
your part.