Re: You Will Burn in Hell!

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
news:4vmdc91mbsl3sp4rb...@4ax.com...

On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 22:51:08 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic
Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>"Free Lunch" wrote in message news: "1st Century Apostolic
>Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:
>>"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>>> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:
>>> James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>> >> The Bible wants us to PROVE whatever we can. (1 Th 5:21) It has
>>> >> prophecies which have been proven true. It describes things of
>>> >> science
>>> >> which were not understood at the time. Such as a circular (spherical)
>>> >> earth floating in space. (Isa 40:22; Job 26:7)
>>>
>>> >You've been told that the earth is not floating in space, so why are
>>> >you repeating this lie?
>>>
>>> It is attached to nothing, neither is it secured in place by anything
>>> physically
>>> defined.
>>
>>~ Sure it is. It's called gravity.
>>
>>An invisible force created by God that cannot be seen or touched.....{;o;}
>>
>>Jeff...
>>
>~ It is a force that can be measured.
>
>It still cannot be seen or even logically explained to anyone for
>thousands
>of years.....{;o;}

Science is complicated. It is much easier for some people to make up
stories about gods so they don't have to bother to do any work learning
about science.

>>Why do you allege that God created it.
>
>No-one else has the awesome knowledge or capability!

~There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you describe.

The evidence is all around you throughout the earth, and the heavens,
if only you opened your eyes to see it.

Take a good look in the mirror and see a created miraculously living
creature before your very eyes.

For man with all his 'intelligence' cannot
create a living organism, the secret is denied to him.

Jeff...

[THE COLONEL]

The yung cunt said.
I then took both hands and pulled her skirt down around her ankles.
Then I spread her legs and fucked her, like a hounddog fuckin'a a football.
I blew my load.
End of story.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 4 Jan 2014 08:15:52 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic

No. You don't get to just assert that X is evidence. You need a
hypothesis and a test that shows that it is evidence.

>Take a good look in the mirror and see a created miraculously living
>creature before your very eyes.

There's nothing created or miraculous about people. You are making
empty, indefensible assertions.

>For man with all his 'intelligence' cannot
>create a living organism, the secret is denied to him.

How do you think we get babies.

[FIONA]

Note Quite the end of the story !!!

[FIONA]

On 5/01/2014 12:57 AM, THE COLONEL wrote:

Then the young cunt wanted to go hunt out and fuck THE COLONEL but his
penis would not rise to a second occassion, so he went and got his Mum
Fiona to get her Dildo and while he held down The Colonel she invaded
his anus and he loved it, apart from the fact his bowels were loose for
a week and he found it extremely hard to walk properly, but in the end
he figured it was well worth it.

[THE COLONEL]

"FIONA" <Bliz...@t4u.com> wrote in message
news:52c95714$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

The title of that short excerpt, folks, is Visions of a Shemale.
LOL

[FIONA]

No No No darling Colonel

I am just a normal hetro female who can recognise your secret desire to
be taught to be humble.
It is ok I do understand thisand am prepared to help you will salvation
from your predicament

FIONA

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:

> There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you describe.

There plenty all around you, if you can be bothered to open your eyes.
The human brain we are informed is the most complicated object in the
Universe,
and science can barely scratch it's surface.

Man cannot create life, or even the smallest grass-seed as the secret
remains
with an Almighty Intelligent Creator.

As for the heavens, that is even more awesome proof of intelligent and
intrinsic design.

"20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his
eternal power
and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has
been made, so that men are without excuse."
Romans 1:20 (NIV)

Jeff...

[August Rode]

On 08/01/2014 4:26 PM, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
> "Free Lunch" wrote in message news:
>> There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you describe.
>
> There plenty all around you, if you can be bothered to open your eyes.
> The human brain we are informed is the most complicated object in the
> Universe,
> and science can barely scratch it's surface.
>
> Man cannot create life, or even the smallest grass-seed as the secret
> remains
> with an Almighty Intelligent Creator.
>
> As for the heavens, that is even more awesome proof of intelligent and
> intrinsic design.

Nice series of arguments from ignorance. Lovely. Got anything that isn't
fallacious?

[Ralph]

But...but...who created this 'god'. If you say he has always existed
you'll have to show me the evidence.

[Barry OGrady]

Are you going to provide us with some of this 'plenty' you say is
all around?

We do know there is no good and powerful God.

>Jeff...

--
If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!

[Andrew]

"Ralph" wrote in message news:nIKdnWURVLP3ZlDP...@giganews.com...

You don't know, nevertheless He is.

[Andrew]

"August Rode" wrote in message news:P8lzu.206075$Rp6....@fx15.iad...

Yet you are *unable* to refute them. So you don't even try.

Which is in itself *evidence* of their veracity, and that you
have been *deceived* into accepting a false worldview.

[Andrew]

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message news:r7vrc9dutbrg6brm1...@4ax.com...

> "1st Century Apostolic
> Traditionalist" wrote:

>>"Free Lunch" wrote:
>>> There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you describe.
>>
>>There plenty all around you, if you can be bothered to open your eyes.
>>The human brain we are informed is the most complicated object in the
>>Universe, and science can barely scratch it's surface.
>>
>>Man cannot create life, or even the smallest grass-seed as the secret
>>remains with an Almighty Intelligent Creator.
>>
>>As for the heavens, that is even more awesome proof of intelligent and
>>intrinsic design.
>>
>>"20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his
>>eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being
>>understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
>>Romans 1:20 (NIV)
>
> Are you going to provide us with some of this 'plenty' you say is
> all around?
>
> We do know there is no good and powerful God.

We do know that He is, however it appears that
you have a question concerning His beneficence.

[Barry OGrady]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 00:03:05 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

I have no question. I'm just pointing out the rock solid proof
of no God that is both good and almighty.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Are you going to provide us with some of this 'plenty' you say is
all around?

[Barry OGrady]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 00:00:08 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

The creator of God must be beyond awesome.
Such a finely tuned God can not have come about by chance.

[Barry OGrady]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 00:02:44 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

You think you know things you don't actually know.
I don't know either. But at least I know I don't know.
In that way I have an advantage over you.

[Andrew]

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message news:2spsc9h678c76q4c1...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>>"Barry OGrady" wrote:
>>> "1st Century Apostolic
>>> Traditionalist" wrote:
>>>>"Free Lunch" wrote:
>>>>> There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you describe.
>>>>
>>>>There plenty all around you, if you can be bothered to open your eyes.
>>>>The human brain we are informed is the most complicated object in the
>>>>Universe, and science can barely scratch it's surface.
>>>>
>>>>Man cannot create life, or even the smallest grass-seed as the secret
>>>>remains with an Almighty Intelligent Creator.
>>>>
>>>>As for the heavens, that is even more awesome proof of intelligent and
>>>>intrinsic design.
>>>>
>>>>"20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his
>>>>eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being
>>>>understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
>>>>Romans 1:20 (NIV)
>>>
>>> Are you going to provide us with some of this 'plenty' you say is
>>> all around?
>>>
>>> We do know there is no good and powerful God.
>>
>>We do know that He is, however it appears that
>>you have a question concerning His beneficence.
>
> I have no question.

Intelligent folk should question.

> I'm just pointing out the rock solid
> proof of no God that is both good and almighty.

But you use *false reasoning* by constructing a simplistic
formula, ignoring other factors that will influence the true
outcome of the equation.

> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
>
> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
> Then he is not omnipotent.

He is both willing and able.

> Is he able, but not willing?
> Then he is malevolent.

But He is both willing and able.

> Is he both able and willing?
> Then whence cometh evil?

It is a *temporary* phenomena
in the light of all eternity.

> Is he neither able nor willing?

No, He is both willing and able.

> Then why call him God?

Because He is and His eternal
purposes of love will prevail.

[Andrew]

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message news:b5qsc9d3m2pctkb23...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "August Rode" wrote:
>>> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>>>> "Free Lunch" wrote in message news:
>>>>> There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you describe.
>>>>
>>>> There plenty all around you, if you can be bothered to open your eyes.
>>>> The human brain we are informed is the most complicated object in the
>>>> Universe, and science can barely scratch it's surface.
>>>>
>>>> Man cannot create life, or even the smallest grass-seed as the secret
>>>> remains with an Almighty Intelligent Creator.
>>>>
>>>> As for the heavens, that is even more awesome proof of intelligent and
>>>> intrinsic design.
>>>
>>> Nice series of arguments from ignorance.
>>
>>Yet you are *unable* to refute them. So you don't even try.
>>
>>Which is in itself *evidence* of their veracity, and that you
>>have been *deceived* into accepting a false worldview.
>
> You think you know things you don't actually know.

No, I positively know what I know because I have solid
evidence from multiple sources.

> I don't know either. But at least I know I don't know.

Then get to work and do your homework and personal
research.

> In that way I have an advantage over you.

No, ignorance is a disadvantage.

[Barry OGrady]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 02:17:00 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

>"Barry OGrady" wrote in message news:b5qsc9d3m2pctkb23...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "August Rode" wrote:
> >>> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>>>>> "Free Lunch" wrote in message news:
>>>>>> There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you describe.
>>>>>
>>>>> There plenty all around you, if you can be bothered to open your eyes.
>>>>> The human brain we are informed is the most complicated object in the
>>>>> Universe, and science can barely scratch it's surface.
>>>>>
>>>>> Man cannot create life, or even the smallest grass-seed as the secret
>>>>> remains with an Almighty Intelligent Creator.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the heavens, that is even more awesome proof of intelligent and
>>>>> intrinsic design.
>>>>
>>>> Nice series of arguments from ignorance.
>>>
>>>Yet you are *unable* to refute them. So you don't even try.
>>>
>>>Which is in itself *evidence* of their veracity, and that you
>>>have been *deceived* into accepting a false worldview.
>>
>> You think you know things you don't actually know.
>
>No, I positively know what I know because I have solid
>evidence from multiple sources.

Many Christians have made that claim but none have been
able to provide any evidence.

>> I don't know either. But at least I know I don't know.
>
>Then get to work and do your homework and personal
>research.

That's normally good advice but the information is not available.

You think you know things you don't actually know.

I don't know either. But at least I know I don't know.

In that way I have an advantage over you.

>> In that way I have an advantage over you.
>
>No, ignorance is a disadvantage.

You are ignorant of your ignorance.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

[Barry OGrady]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 02:00:31 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

You are not intelligent.

>> I'm just pointing out the rock solid
>> proof of no God that is both good and almighty.
>
>But you use *false reasoning* by constructing a simplistic
>formula, ignoring other factors that will influence the true
>outcome of the equation.

Steve Willson made that same claim but like you he was unable
to find a loophole.

>> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
>>
>> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
>> Then he is not omnipotent.
>
>He is both willing and able.

Then whence cometh evil?

>> Is he able, but not willing?
>> Then he is malevolent.
>
>But He is both willing and able.

Then whence cometh evil?

>> Is he both able and willing?
>> Then whence cometh evil?
>
>It is a *temporary* phenomena
>in the light of all eternity.

Then God is not both willing and able temporally.

>> Is he neither able nor willing?
>
>No, He is both willing and able.

Then whence cometh evil?

>> Then why call him God?
>
>Because He is and His eternal
>purposes of love will prevail.

If God was good he would want everything to be good for us.
If God was almighty he would be able to have what he wants.
That's logic and no amount of Christian bullshit can change that.

You think you know things you don't actually know.
I don't know either. But at least I know I don't know.
In that way I have an advantage over you.

[August Rode]

On 09/01/2014 3:02 AM, Andrew wrote:
> "August Rode" wrote in message news:P8lzu.206075$Rp6....@fx15.iad...
>> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>>> "Free Lunch" wrote in message news:
>>>> There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you describe.
>>>
>>> There plenty all around you, if you can be bothered to open your eyes.
>>> The human brain we are informed is the most complicated object in the
>>> Universe, and science can barely scratch it's surface.
>>>
>>> Man cannot create life, or even the smallest grass-seed as the secret
>>> remains with an Almighty Intelligent Creator.
>>>
>>> As for the heavens, that is even more awesome proof of intelligent and
>>> intrinsic design.
>>
>> Nice series of arguments from ignorance.
>
> Yet you are *unable* to refute them. So you don't even try.

What's to refute, Andrew? Some of his statements are true and the
remainder are his personal opinion, unsupported by any facts.

> Which is in itself *evidence* of their veracity, and that you
> have been *deceived* into accepting a false worldview.

When one side unilaterally declares victory before it fires the first
shot, the other side is permitted to laugh.

[duke]

Impossible. No flesh will ever be able to do that.

duke, American-American
*****
When Obama was elected, he said he couldn't be more
proud for this country. Now, after 5 years, we Americans
will never be more disgusted with the mess he as created.
*****

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 21:26:28 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic

Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:
>> There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you describe.
>
>There plenty all around you, if you can be bothered to open your eyes.

No, no, no, no, no. You are a screaming fool. You do _not_ get to claim
that X is evidence for W just because you want it to be when there is
absolutely no identified way to tie them together. I realize that this
is a common conceit of theists, but it is false, it is dishonest, it is
foolish.

>The human brain we are informed is the most complicated object in the
>Universe, and science can barely scratch it's surface.

So what? That does not show us that there are any gods.

>Man cannot create life, or even the smallest grass-seed as the secret
>remains with an Almighty Intelligent Creator.

It's not that much of a secret. It is an incredibly complex technical
undertaking that also requires a bit more scientific understanding. What
will your excuse be when scientists show that this can be done, just as
they have shown that viruses can be assembled.

>As for the heavens, that is even more awesome proof of intelligent and
>intrinsic design.

No it is not. There is absolutely no evidence at all that any gods, let
alone the one you prattle on about, had anything to do with anything at
all in the universe.

>"20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his
>eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being
>understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
>Romans 1:20 (NIV)

Don't waste our time with your meaningless quotations from any
scriptures until you can show that your scriptures are trustworthy.

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 00:02:44 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>

wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

What a pile of bovine excrement you spew.

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 02:17:00 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>"Barry OGrady" wrote in message news:b5qsc9d3m2pctkb23...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "August Rode" wrote:
> >>> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>>>>> "Free Lunch" wrote in message news:
>>>>>> There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you describe.
>>>>>
>>>>> There plenty all around you, if you can be bothered to open your eyes.
>>>>> The human brain we are informed is the most complicated object in the
>>>>> Universe, and science can barely scratch it's surface.
>>>>>
>>>>> Man cannot create life, or even the smallest grass-seed as the secret
>>>>> remains with an Almighty Intelligent Creator.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the heavens, that is even more awesome proof of intelligent and
>>>>> intrinsic design.
>>>>
>>>> Nice series of arguments from ignorance.
>>>
>>>Yet you are *unable* to refute them. So you don't even try.
>>>
>>>Which is in itself *evidence* of their veracity, and that you
>>>have been *deceived* into accepting a false worldview.
>>
>> You think you know things you don't actually know.
>
>No, I positively know what I know because I have solid
>evidence from multiple sources.

Then you are not talking about your religious claims any more because
you know that you have absolutely no evidence to support your religious
claims.

>> I don't know either. But at least I know I don't know.
>
>Then get to work and do your homework and personal
>research.
>
>> In that way I have an advantage over you.
>
>No, ignorance is a disadvantage.

Yet you worship your own ignorance.

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 00:00:08 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Andrew worships the falsehoods he preaches.

[Free Lunch]

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 23:30:25 +1100, Barry OGrady
<ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Andrew is in denial about the absurd inconsistency of his indefensible
religious claims.

>>> Is he able, but not willing?
>>> Then he is malevolent.
>>
>>But He is both willing and able.
>
>Then whence cometh evil?
>
>>> Is he both able and willing?
>>> Then whence cometh evil?
>>
>>It is a *temporary* phenomena
>>in the light of all eternity.
>
>Then God is not both willing and able temporally.
>
>>> Is he neither able nor willing?
>>
>>No, He is both willing and able.
>
>Then whence cometh evil?
>
>>> Then why call him God?
>>
>>Because He is and His eternal
>>purposes of love will prevail.
>
>If God was good he would want everything to be good for us.
>If God was almighty he would be able to have what he wants.
>That's logic and no amount of Christian bullshit can change that.
>
>You think you know things you don't actually know.
>I don't know either. But at least I know I don't know.
>In that way I have an advantage over you.

If there were a god, it would be silly for him to hide from us. A god
that actually exists would have no need for "followers" who make excuses
for his disappearance and make excuses for evil.

[duke]

And YOU think you can challenge him? Haahaahaa.

[Ralph]

From your reply, it appears you don't know 'jack' either.

[Ralph]

Can you refute the claim that Pink Unicorns didn't create the universe
and that they are the gods of
the universe? Didn't think so.

[Ralph]

On 1/9/2014 3:03 AM, Andrew wrote:
> "Barry OGrady" wrote in message news:r7vrc9dutbrg6brm1...@4ax.com...
>> "1st Century Apostolic
>> Traditionalist" wrote:
>>> "Free Lunch" wrote:
>>>> There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you descr

>>>> There plenty all around you, if you can be bothered to open your eyes.
>>>> The human brain we are informed is the most complicated object in the
>>>> Universe, and science can barely scratch it's surface.
>>>>
>>>> Man cannot create life, or even the smallest grass-seed as the secret
>>>> remains with an Almighty Intelligent Creator.
>>>>
>>>> As for the heavens, that is even more awesome proof of intelligent and
>>>> intrinsic design.
>>>>
>>>> "20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his
>>>> eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being
>>>> understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
>>>> Romans 1:20 (NIV)
>> Are you going to provide us with some of this 'plenty' you say is
>> all around?
>>
>> We do know there is no good and powerful God.
> We do know that He is, however it appears that
> you have a question concerning His beneficence.

Aw shit Andrew, give it a rest!

[Ralph]

We did and decided that your god is a a fraud.

>
>> I'm just pointing out the rock solid
>> proof of no God that is both good and almighty.
> But you use *false reasoning* by constructing a simplistic
> formula, ignoring other factors that will influence the true
> outcome of the equation.

In what ways, Andrew?

>
>> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
>>
>> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
>> Then he is not omnipotent.
> He is both willing and able.

Mmmm....any evidence of that?

>
>> Is he able, but not willing?
>> Then he is malevolent.
> But He is both willing and able.

Then why doesn't he?

>
>> Is he both able and willing?
>> Then whence cometh evil?
> It is a *temporary* phenomena
> in the light of all eternity.

Evidence????

>
>> Is he neither able nor willing?
> No, He is both willing and able.

Then why doesn't he?

>
>> Then why call him God?
> Because He is and His eternal
> purposes of love will prevail.
>
>

Sorry Andrew, your proposed god falls short on all three legs of the god
triangle.

[Barry OGrady]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:26:20 -0500, Ralph <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Christians don't know that they don't know things.

[Andrew]

"Ralph" wrote in message news:Xa6dnUC1UfHtA03P...@giganews.com...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "Barry OGrady" wrote:
>>>
>>> We do know there is no good and powerful God.
>>
>> We do know that He is, however it appears that
>> you have a question concerning His beneficence.
>
> Aw shit Andrew, give it a rest!

Yes, Ralph..


"Our hearts are restless, until they find rest
in Thee." ~ Augustine of Hippo

Then may you like Augustine, soon find the
healing rest that we all may find in Him, and
experience release from all of anxieties that
have plagued the soul.

"Come unto Me all ye that labor and are heavy
laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke
upon you and learn of Me, for I am meek and
lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your
souls." ~ Jesus

He is real.

He is the One who loves you.

[Andrew]

"Ralph" wrote in message news:Xa6dnUG1UfGKA03P...@giganews.com...
> Andrew wrote:

At least we agree that- the Universe
is the result of --> Creation.

[Barry OGrady]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:35:19 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

Like a pedophile 'loves' a child.

Is there some way we can escape God's 'love'?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:

"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"

>"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:
>>> There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you describe.
>
>>There plenty all around you, if you can be bothered to open your eyes.

>No, no, no, no, no.

Yes! yes! yes! yes! yes!
No-one in their right thinking logical mind would suggest that all the
heavens
and the earth and the laws that govern the Universe and the miraculous
diversity of life
just on the earth itself, came into being by unintelligent and spasmodic
mutant
configurations, better known as sheer blind chance and hopeless
uncoordinated happenings.
It just is not feasible even to a 10 year old.

Jeff...

[Andrew]

Barry OGrady" wrote in message news:g4e1d9l7m7t2pa3bp...@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>>"Ralph" wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>> "Barry OGrady" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We do know there is no good and powerful God.
>>>>
>>>> We do know that He is, however it appears that
>>>> you have a question concerning His beneficence.
>>>
>>> Aw shit Andrew, give it a rest!
>>
>>Yes, Ralph..
>>
>>"Our hearts are restless, until they find rest
>> in Thee." ~ Augustine of Hippo
>>
>>Then may you like Augustine, soon find the
>>healing rest that we all may find in Him, and
>>experience release from all of anxieties that
>>have plagued the soul.
>>
>>"Come unto Me all ye that labor and are heavy
>> laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke
>> upon you and learn of Me, for I am meek and
>> lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your
>> souls." ~ Jesus
>>
>>He is real.
>>
>>He is the One who loves you.
>

> Is there some way we can escape God's 'love'?

No, but you can foolishly turn away from Him
and reject it.

> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
>
> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
> Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing?
> Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing?
> Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing?
> Then why call him God?

There you go again reciting your foolish
mantra, the structure of which is based
upon false reasoning, by ignoring other
factors of the equation.

[Barry OGrady]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 02:10:58 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

I hoped that by now the church had worked out a way
for us to avoid being abused by God.

>> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
>>
>> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
>> Then he is not omnipotent.
>> Is he able, but not willing?
>> Then he is malevolent.
>> Is he both able and willing?
>> Then whence cometh evil?
>> Is he neither able nor willing?
>> Then why call him God?
>
>There you go again reciting your foolish
>mantra, the structure of which is based
>upon false reasoning, by ignoring other
>factors of the equation.

I am not aware of any other factors of the equation.
Would you be so kind as to elighten me?

[Barry OGrady]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 07:44:27 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic
Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:
>"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>>"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:
>>>> There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you describe.
>>
>>>There plenty all around you, if you can be bothered to open your eyes.
>
>>No, no, no, no, no.
>
>Yes! yes! yes! yes! yes!

Will you be giving us some examples?

You think you know things that you do not actually know.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/08/wise/

>No-one in their right thinking logical mind would suggest that all the
>heavens and the earth and the laws that govern the Universe and the
>miraculous diversity of life just on the earth itself, came into being
>by unintelligent and spasmodic mutant configurations, better known as
>sheer blind chance and hopeless uncoordinated happenings.
>It just is not feasible even to a 10 year old.

No-one in their right thinking logical mind would suggest that a

magical God pre-loaded with all knowledge and power came into

being by unintelligent and spasmodic mutant configurations, better
known as sheer blind chance and hopeless uncoordinated happenings.
It just is not feasible even to a 10 year old.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

>Jeff...

[August Rode]

I don't know of *anyone* who makes such a claim.

> It just is not feasible even to a 10 year old.

Children have invisible friends.

[James]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>

The creator of billions of hot lumicent suns would vaporitize a
fleshly humns. Ex 33:20,

"But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
live."" (NIV)

Thus be glad He doesn't appear before you. You would vaporize. As for
evil, That comes from demons and humans. As for God, Jas 1:13,

"When someone is being tested, he shouldn't think that God is tempting
him to do wrong. Evil cannot tempt God and God does not tempt anyone
with evil." (Simple English)

You are so wrong about your loving Creator. Don't mix up God's right
to punish wrongdoers with evil. God NEVER PUNISHED A RIGHTEOUS HUMAN.


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org


As for

[Barry OGrady]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:28:31 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>

>
>>If there were a god, it would be silly for him to hide from us. A god
>>that actually exists would have no need for "followers" who make excuses
>>for his disappearance and make excuses for evil.
>

>"But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
>live."" (NIV)

Exodus 33:11
And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto
his friend.

>Thus be glad He doesn't appear before you. You would vaporize.

So God can't control it's power.

>As for evil, That comes from demons and humans.

Demons and humans come from God,
-Colossians 1:16

God creates evil.
-Isaiah 45:7

>As for God, Jas 1:13,

2 Thessalonians 2:11

>"When someone is being tested, he shouldn't think that God is tempting
>him to do wrong. Evil cannot tempt God and God does not tempt anyone
>with evil." (Simple English)

2 Thessalonians 2:11
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie:

>You are so wrong about your loving Creator. Don't mix up God's right
>to punish wrongdoers with evil.

Don't mix up God's might with God's right.
God may have the might to act immorally but not the right.

>God NEVER PUNISHED A RIGHTEOUS HUMAN.

God only punishes people he created.
Colossians 1:16 - 17
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that
are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

You lose!

[James]

Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>

>On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:28:31 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>
>>>If there were a god, it would be silly for him to hide from us. A god
>>>that actually exists would have no need for "followers" who make excuses
>>>for his disappearance and make excuses for evil.
>>
>>"But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
>>live."" (NIV)
>
>Exodus 33:11
>And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto
>his friend.

Sometimes God uses angels to directly represent him. The apostle Paul
revealed to us that is what not literaly God who transmitted those
Mosaic laws, but one of His representative angels. Acts 7:53,

"you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels
but have not obeyed it."

>
>>Thus be glad He doesn't appear before you. You would vaporize.
>
>So God can't control it's power.

There are things that God cannot do, such a lying. His glory is so
massive that to appear to a human would be too much for a human to
endure.

>
>>As for evil, That comes from demons and humans.
>
>Demons and humans come from God,
>-Colossians 1:16

Yes, God created free will creatures. The evil is theirs.

>
>God creates evil.
>-Isaiah 45:7

Here are how some modern day Bibles translate that verse which can
give us a flavor of what that verse is talking about.

(NIV) "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and
create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."

(RSV) "I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe,
I am the LORD, who do all these things."

(NASB) "The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing
well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these."

(NWT) "Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and
creating calamity, I, Jehovah, am doing all these things."

Since God makes "calamity" or "evil" for certain people, can the
Bible's use of that word "evil" always be considered a bad thing?
Notice a discussion on this subject from this Bible encyclopedia:

"The Meaning of Jehovah's Bringing Evil.

Rightly, Jehovah brought evil or calamity upon Adam for his
disobedience. Hence, in the Scriptures, Jehovah is referred to as the
Creator of evil or calamity. (Isa 45:7; compare KJ.) His enforcing of
the penalty for sin, namely, death, has proved to be an evil, or a
calamity, for mankind. So, then, evil is not always synonymous with
wrongdoing. Examples of evils or calamities created by Jehovah are the
Flood of Noah's day and the Ten Plagues visited upon Egypt. But these
evils were not wrongs. Rather, the rightful administration of justice
against wrongdoers was involved in both cases. However, at times
Jehovah, in his mercy, has refrained from bringing the intended
calamity or evil in execution of his righteous judgment because of the
repentance on the part of those concerned. (Jon 3:10) Additionally, in
having a warning given, Jehovah has undeservedly provided
opportunities for the practicers of bad to change their course and
thus to keep living.-Eze 33:11." (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1,
pp. 772,773.)

Yes, when the God of the Bible administers justice, it certainly
appears 'evil' to the one's receiving that justice, but in reality is
it is right and proper. As Moses wrote at De 32:4 concerning God,

"The Rock, perfect is his activity,
For all his ways are justice.
A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice;
Righteous and upright is he."

>
>>As for God, Jas 1:13,
>
>2 Thessalonians 2:11

Actually some translations render Titus 1:2 as saying that God
"cannot" lie. (KJV, DBY, NWT) This is supported by Paul's statement at
He 6:18,

"in order that, through two unchangeable things in which it is
impossible for God to lie,..."

Then what does 2 Th 2:11,12 mean? It reads,

"So that is why God lets an operation of error go to them, that they
may get to believing the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged
because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in
unrighteousness."

Notice the beginning words "So that is why..." This passage in showing
some action on God's part because of something said earlier. Thus we
must consider the context in order to understand this passage.

Paul is referring to a great "apostasy" (falling away from the true
religion) that was to occur. Notice verse 3,

"Let no one seduce YOU in any manner, because it will not come unless
the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the
son of destruction."

Those involved in this "apostasy" use an "operation of Satan with
every powerful work and lying signs and portents and with every
unrighteous deception". (Vs 9)

Notice who is doing the "deception". It is the members of that
apostasy.

But why would anyone listen to the teachings of that apostasy?

Apparently they like what they hear. Vs 10,

"... because they did not accept the love of the truth that they might
be saved."

These people do not love "the truth" of God's word. So God lets them
believe the lies of that deceptive apostasy, since that is what they
want anyway.
As the main verse we are discussing says,

"...because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in
unrighteousness."

Thus God is not doing anything unrighteousness, those wicked people
are. God is permitting those things to take place at this time. But
soon, God will not permit it any longer. (See Pr 2:21,22)

>
>>"When someone is being tested, he shouldn't think that God is tempting
>>him to do wrong. Evil cannot tempt God and God does not tempt anyone
>>with evil." (Simple English)
>
>2 Thessalonians 2:11
>11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
>should believe a lie:

See above the discussion of 2 Thess 2:11

>
>>You are so wrong about your loving Creator. Don't mix up God's right
>>to punish wrongdoers with evil.
>
>Don't mix up God's might with God's right.
>God may have the might to act immorally but not the right.

>God does act immorally

Immorality is defined by God. And it is humans and disobedient angels
who are immoral.

>
>>God NEVER PUNISHED A RIGHTEOUS HUMAN.
>
>God only punishes people he created.
>Colossians 1:16 - 17
>16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that
>are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or
>dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
>him, and for him:
>17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Thus God only punishes people who turn wicked with their free choice.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org


>

>You lose!

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:07:27 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

>Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>
>>On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:28:31 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>
>>>>If there were a god, it would be silly for him to hide from us. A god
>>>>that actually exists would have no need for "followers" who make excuses
>>>>for his disappearance and make excuses for evil.
>>>
>>>"But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
>>>live."" (NIV)
>>
>>Exodus 33:11
>>And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto
>>his friend.
>
>Sometimes God uses angels to directly represent him. The apostle Paul
>revealed to us that is what not literaly God who transmitted those
>Mosaic laws, but one of His representative angels. Acts 7:53,
>
>"you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels
>but have not obeyed it."

The ones who did not obey where the smart ones who were unwilling
to be taken in by the deception.

>>>Thus be glad He doesn't appear before you. You would vaporize.
>>
>>So God can't control it's power.
>
>There are things that God cannot do, such a lying.

Yet there are many examples where God does just that.
God hiding is one huge lie.

>His glory is so massive that to appear to a human would be too much
>for a human to endure.

God must have his reasons for making humans that way.
Do you know why God made humans as just another mammal with
the same basic wants and needs and the same method of reproduction?

>>>As for evil, That comes from demons and humans.
>>
>>Demons and humans come from God,
>>-Colossians 1:16
>
>Yes, God created free will creatures. The evil is theirs.

They are God's victims. God must be made to accept responsibility
for the thoughts and actions of his creatures.

>>God creates evil.
>>-Isaiah 45:7
>
>Here are how some modern day Bibles translate that verse which can
>give us a flavor of what that verse is talking about.
>
>(NIV) "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and
>create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."
>
>(RSV) "I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe,
>I am the LORD, who do all these things."
>
>(NASB) "The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing
>well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these."
>
>(NWT) "Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and
>creating calamity, I, Jehovah, am doing all these things."
>
>Since God makes "calamity" or "evil" for certain people, can the
>Bible's use of that word "evil" always be considered a bad thing?

Yes, of course.

Colossians 1:16 says God is responsible for all our problems.

All those things are covered by Colossians 1:16 which says that God
is responsible for every thought and every action.
You should stop blaming God's victims for being the way God made
them.

You are no better than a muslim who blames a rape victim.

You should use your influence to organise a world wide boycott
of God. Use God's vanity against God to force God to accept
responsibility for our problems and to do something to fix
the mess he made.
Good luck with that!

>>>You are so wrong about your loving Creator. Don't mix up God's right
>>>to punish wrongdoers with evil.
>>
>>Don't mix up God's might with God's right.
>>God may have the might to act immorally but not the right.
>
>>God does act immorally
>
>Immorality is defined by God.

Not so.

>And it is humans and disobedient angels who are immoral.

Made that way by God so it is God that is immoral.

>>>God NEVER PUNISHED A RIGHTEOUS HUMAN.
>>
>>God only punishes people he created.
>>Colossians 1:16 - 17
>>16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that
>>are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or
>>dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
>>him, and for him:
>>17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
>
>Thus God only punishes people who turn wicked with their free choice.

Does your version of God have the ability to correct his errors?
Or is God too vain to admit to errors?

>James

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"James" wrote in message news:
Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>

>>>"But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
>>>live."" (NIV)
>
>>Exodus 33:11
>>And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto
>>his friend.

>Sometimes God uses angels to directly represent him. The apostle Paul

>revealed to us that is what not literally God who transmitted those

>Mosaic laws, but one of His representative angels. Acts 7:53,

>"you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels
>but have not obeyed it."

Yes! God does use His Angels to 'deputize' for Him, as in this passage
in one of the Daily Bible Readings of today.

"15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the
second time, 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD,
for
because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son,
thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying
I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand
which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of
his enemies;

18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice"
Gen 22:15-18 (KJV)

HTH.

Jeff...

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Free Lunch" wrote in message

news:4vmdc91mbsl3sp4rb...@4ax.com...

On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 22:51:08 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic
Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>"Free Lunch" wrote in message news: "1st Century Apostolic

>Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:
>>"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>>> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:
>>> James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>> >> The Bible wants us to PROVE whatever we can. (1 Th 5:21) It has
>>> >> prophecies which have been proven true. It describes things of
>>> >> science
>>> >> which were not understood at the time. Such as a circular (spherical)
>>> >> earth floating in space. (Isa 40:22; Job 26:7)
>>>
>>> >You've been told that the earth is not floating in space, so why are
>>> >you repeating this lie?
>>>
>>> It is attached to nothing, neither is it secured in place by anything
>>> physically
>>> defined.
>>
>>~ Sure it is. It's called gravity.
>>
>>An invisible force created by God that cannot be seen or touched.....{;o;}
>>
>>Jeff...
>>
>~ It is a force that can be measured.
>
>It still cannot be seen or even logically explained to anyone for
>thousands
>of years.....{;o;}

Science is complicated. It is much easier for some people to make up
stories about gods so they don't have to bother to do any work learning
about science.

>>Why do you allege that God created it.
>
>No-one else has the awesome knowledge or capability!

~ There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you describe.

R-O-F-L.
It's overwhelming and everywhere we look, whether in the mirror,
in the sea, on the land, or at the heavens at night.

The earth's miraculous and
exquisite diversity of living creatures are witnesses to an awesome
intelligent Creator of the Universe.

But you must first take away the numerous blindfolds over your eyes, and
then take
away the veils draped over your mind, to be able to see them and marry them
together.

Jeff...
As the saying goes, 'There are none so blind as those who *do not want* to
see"

[James]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>

Trustworthy huh. Alright try this.

In the past, the earth had some weird explanations. For example, the
ancient Hindu writings of the Ramayana says that it rested on the back
of a giant turtle supported by 8 elephants. When the astronauts saw
such things in space, they sure are awful quiet about it.

But let's go back some more thousands of years. This one should be
even more weird. Here it is:

"He [God] sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,..." (Isa
40:22; NIV)

The Hebrew word for circle here, "hhug", can also mean sphere. (for
example see: "A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures by B.
Davidson")

They must have been drinking or smoking something to think of the
earth as circular or spherical. How ridiculous, everyone can see it is
flat. But there is more:

The earth must be hanging upon something, like all the other lights in
the night sky. That is what Aristotle said, and we know he was no
ignorant farmer or something. But one of those scientific ignoramuses
said thousands of years earlier:

"He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon
nothing." (Job 26:7; RSV)

How can something just float in space? Nonsense. Those astrounughts
must not be telling us another thing, a great cord attached to the
earth and hanging it. Shame on those lying astrounughts!

[August Rode]

You do know that it's pretty much meaningless to say that anyone can sit
*above* a sphere, right? If you don't think so, perhaps you could
elaborate on which star God's throne might be near? Is he hanging out
somewhere near Polaris?

Hebrew cosmology described:
<http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm>

> They must have been drinking or smoking something to think of the
> earth as circular or spherical. How ridiculous, everyone can see it is
> flat. But there is more:
>
> The earth must be hanging upon something, like all the other lights in
> the night sky. That is what Aristotle said, and we know he was no
> ignorant farmer or something. But one of those scientific ignoramuses
> said thousands of years earlier:
>
> "He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon
> nothing." (Job 26:7; RSV)

If you visit the link that I provided above, you'll see that the earth
hangs on nothing. It is supported from below.

What you're doing is choosing to interpret the Bible in the light of
what modern science has revealed rather than with an understanding of
what the universe was supposed to have looked like at the time the Old
Testament was written. You are engaging in confirmation bias rather than
in trying to understand what the original authors might have been trying
to say.

> How can something just float in space? Nonsense. Those astrounughts
> must not be telling us another thing, a great cord attached to the
> earth and hanging it. Shame on those lying astrounughts!

Astrounughts? You mean 'astronauts'? If so, that's some impressive butchery!

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 17:46:40 -0500, August Rode <aug....@gmail.com>
wrote:

Theists don't make up stuff. They lack the intellect to do that.
They can only regurgitate what they are programmed with.
Try asking a theist to support their claims. They can't.

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"August Rode" wrote in message news:tXEAu.275814$tR7.2...@fx22.iad...

snip

> You do know that it's pretty much meaningless to say that anyone can sit
> *above* a sphere, right? If you don't think so, perhaps you could
> elaborate on which star God's throne might be near? Is he hanging out
> somewhere near Polaris?

Just a quick intercession to stop you talking bollocks but think you are
being scientific.

You said that is pretty much meaningless to say that anyone can sit above a
sphere.

That is utter nonsense.

Up, Down, Below and Above are all essentially meaningless until you one
provides some additional information but that is no more true of a sphere
than it is of a goldfish or a plate. Likewise upon, below, aside, near, far,
warm, cold, hot etc etc etc

If point a is 1m from point b then, depending on our relative position or an
arbitrary axis a could be above, below, aside, near, far from, close to, etc
etc point b.

By all means attack theism, by all means use logic and reason as your tools,
but if you intend to do it will help if you remain some distance from just
verbiage with zero content.

I'm not sure that all atheists are idiots, I haven't met them all. I'm not
sure all theists are idiots for much the same reason.

regards

Phil

[James]

Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>

Name one example please.

>God hiding is one huge lie.
>
>>His glory is so massive that to appear to a human would be too much
>>for a human to endure.
>
>God must have his reasons for making humans that way.
>Do you know why God made humans as just another mammal with
>the same basic wants and needs and the same method of reproduction?

No. I don't know the mind of God. And we are not JUST another mammal.
There is Grand Canyon between an ape and a human being. The human
brain has been called the most complex thing in the universe. So other
than being flesh and blood, we are miles different from other mammals.

>
>>>>As for evil, That comes from demons and humans.
>>>
>>>Demons and humans come from God,
>>>-Colossians 1:16
>>
>>Yes, God created free will creatures. The evil is theirs.
>
>They are God's victims. God must be made to accept responsibility
>for the thoughts and actions of his creatures.

Not with free will He isn't. All the animal kingdom is 'programmed' to
act certain ways. But not with humans, other than a special guidance
mechanism, the conscience.

>
>>>God creates evil.
>>>-Isaiah 45:7
>>
>>Here are how some modern day Bibles translate that verse which can
>>give us a flavor of what that verse is talking about.
>>
>>(NIV) "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and
>>create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."
>>
>>(RSV) "I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe,
>>I am the LORD, who do all these things."
>>
>>(NASB) "The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing
>>well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these."
>>
>>(NWT) "Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and
>>creating calamity, I, Jehovah, am doing all these things."
>>
>>Since God makes "calamity" or "evil" for certain people, can the
>>Bible's use of that word "evil" always be considered a bad thing?
>
>Yes, of course.

Not always. Because the way the Bible uses it, God can be said to
inflict 'evil' on a person, when God let's that person use his free
will to do evil things. The permission of evil does not make God the
instigator of it. And God's 'evil' in this case can be a good thing in
that it exposes the true nature of the person.

Why would an atheist quote the Bible since you don't believe in it
anyway? Are you starting to believe some parts of the Bible? Col 1:16
says,

"For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or
authorities; all things were created by him and for him." (NIV)

Actually this is not talking about God, but of His first created Son,
who we now call "Jesus." And since God only creates good things, the
"all things" is not referring to evil things, but only good things.

See above the discussion on Col 1:16.

>
>You are no better than a muslim who blames a rape victim.
>
>You should use your influence to organise a world wide boycott
>of God. Use God's vanity against God to force God to accept
>responsibility for our problems and to do something to fix
>the mess he made.
>Good luck with that!

God will soon take care of the mess HUMANS made of things. He will
remove the evil humans. Re 11:18,

"...The time has come to destroy those who are destroying the earth."
(NJB)

It is not God who is destroying the earth, it is greedy and wicked
humans. When God acted on the earth, he created a small parcel of land
into a paradise. Then placed Adam and Eve there. So that is God's plan
to have righteous people living on a paradise earth.

>
>>>>You are so wrong about your loving Creator. Don't mix up God's right
>>>>to punish wrongdoers with evil.
>>>
>>>Don't mix up God's might with God's right.
>>>God may have the might to act immorally but not the right.
>>
>>>God does act immorally
>>
>>Immorality is defined by God.
>
>Not so.

And just who does then? Humans have a SENSE of right and wrong. It is
built into us. Murder, stealing, bullying, etc, most groups of humans
agree is evil. That is because humans have a built-in conscience. The
conscience can be corrupted, but at first it is a good test of right
and wrong.

>
>>And it is humans and disobedient angels who are immoral.
>
>Made that way by God so it is God that is immoral.

You can't get further from the truth than that.

>
>>>>God NEVER PUNISHED A RIGHTEOUS HUMAN.
>>>
>>>God only punishes people he created.
>>>Colossians 1:16 - 17
>>>16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that
>>>are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or
>>>dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
>>>him, and for him:
>>>17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
>>
>>Thus God only punishes people who turn wicked with their free choice.
>
>Does your version of God have the ability to correct his errors?

God doesn't make 'errors'. Humans do.

>Or is God too vain to admit to errors?
>

God cannot lie, so He can't admit to things He did not do.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

>>James

[James]

August Rode <aug....@gmail.com>

It is amazing when the truth stares you in the face, how some try to
make up excuses to draw away from it. Ignoring Bible truths won't make
them go away.

>
>> How can something just float in space? Nonsense. Those astrounughts
>> must not be telling us another thing, a great cord attached to the
>> earth and hanging it. Shame on those lying astrounughts!
>
>Astrounughts? You mean 'astronauts'? If so, that's some impressive butchery!

Yes, I am not perfect. And don't know anyone who is!

[Barry OGrady]

[Barry OGrady]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:17:07 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

>August Rode <aug....@gmail.com>
>>On 12/01/2014 4:53 PM, James wrote:
>
>>> "He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon
>>> nothing." (Job 26:7; RSV)
>>
>>If you visit the link that I provided above, you'll see that the earth
>>hangs on nothing. It is supported from below.
>>
>>What you're doing is choosing to interpret the Bible in the light of
>>what modern science has revealed rather than with an understanding of
>>what the universe was supposed to have looked like at the time the Old
>>Testament was written. You are engaging in confirmation bias rather than
>>in trying to understand what the original authors might have been trying
>>to say.

Another thing fundys do is to determine their own standard of morals
and then claim they got their morals from God.
They ignore the fact that their God ignores its own moral standards.

>It is amazing when the truth stares you in the face, how some try to
>make up excuses to draw away from it.

Why do you do that?

>Ignoring Bible truths won't make them go away.

You wish they would go away.

>>> How can something just float in space? Nonsense. Those astrounughts
>>> must not be telling us another thing, a great cord attached to the
>>> earth and hanging it. Shame on those lying astrounughts!
>>
>>Astrounughts? You mean 'astronauts'? If so, that's some impressive butchery!
>
>Yes, I am not perfect. And don't know anyone who is!

Don't be so modest. God only makes good things so you must be good.
You are so amazing you know the mind of God, except when you don't

know the mind of God.

Your life is like the game called 'Twister.'

>James

[Barry OGrady]

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 20:29:15 -0500, Ralph <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.talk.creationism:

>On 1/9/2014 3:03 AM, Andrew wrote:
>> "Barry OGrady" wrote in message news:r7vrc9dutbrg6brm1...@4ax.com...

>>> "1st Century Apostolic
>>> Traditionalist" wrote:
>>>> "Free Lunch" wrote:

>>>>> There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you descr

>>>>> There plenty all around you, if you can be bothered to open your eyes.

>>>>> The human brain we are informed is the most complicated object in the
>>>>> Universe, and science can barely scratch it's surface.
>>>>>

>>>>> Man cannot create life, or even the smallest grass-seed as the secret
>>>>> remains with an Almighty Intelligent Creator.
>>>>>

>>>>> As for the heavens, that is even more awesome proof of intelligent and
>>>>> intrinsic design.
>>>>>

>>>>> "20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his
>>>>> eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being
>>>>> understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
>>>>> Romans 1:20 (NIV)

>>> Are you going to provide us with some of this 'plenty' you say is
>>> all around?
>>>
>>> We do know there is no good and powerful God.
>> We do know that He is, however it appears that
>> you have a question concerning His beneficence.
>

>Aw shit Andrew, give it a rest!

Andrew worships his own ignorance and arrogance. He will never admit
that he preaches nonsense.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 07:44:27 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic

Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Jeff refuses to learn any science so he can preach his hopelessly silly
doctrines about his god.

How much less feasible is your god than our universe as we see it?

You invent nonsense and preach foolishness.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:53:58 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote

The Bible is full of errors.

Your attempt to twist some Bible verses while ignoring others shows the
depths of depravity that believers will sink to in order to defend their
claims about their gods.

[Barry OGrady]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:03:32 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>

In the case of at least cows, mares, and human females, the genital
organ is arranged the same. In each case the organ is a slit with the
end nearest the anus being the entrance to the vagina and the other
end containing the outlet for urine.
Besides that we have the same number of limbs, same number of
ears and eyes, the same sort of brain functionality, and the same
method of reproduction. All that points to evolution since an almighty
and all-knowing creator would be expected to make his prime creation
quite separate from the animals.

>>>>>As for evil, That comes from demons and humans.
>>>>
>>>>Demons and humans come from God,
>>>>-Colossians 1:16
>>>
>>>Yes, God created free will creatures. The evil is theirs.
>>
>>They are God's victims. God must be made to accept responsibility
>>for the thoughts and actions of his creatures.
>
>Not with free will He isn't. All the animal kingdom is 'programmed' to
>act certain ways. But not with humans, other than a special guidance
>mechanism, the conscience.

Like other mammals, a human's thinking and behaviour is directly
controlled by their brain function. If God designed the human brain
then God is responsible for every thought and every action.
If God gave us free will then God is responsible for how we use
that free will. Free will is not an out for God.

>>>>God creates evil.
>>>>-Isaiah 45:7
>>>
>>>Here are how some modern day Bibles translate that verse which can
>>>give us a flavor of what that verse is talking about.
>>>
>>>(NIV) "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and
>>>create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."
>>>
>>>(RSV) "I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe,
>>>I am the LORD, who do all these things."
>>>
>>>(NASB) "The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing
>>>well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these."
>>>
>>>(NWT) "Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and
>>>creating calamity, I, Jehovah, am doing all these things."
>>>
>>>Since God makes "calamity" or "evil" for certain people, can the
>>>Bible's use of that word "evil" always be considered a bad thing?
>>
>>Yes, of course.
>
>Not always. Because the way the Bible uses it, God can be said to
>inflict 'evil' on a person, when God let's that person use his free
>will to do evil things. The permission of evil does not make God the
>instigator of it. And God's 'evil' in this case can be a good thing in
>that it exposes the true nature of the person.

If God is almighty there can be no excuse for him to allow evil.

To piss you off by using your bible against you.

>Are you starting to believe some parts of the Bible? Col 1:16
>says,
>
>"For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth,
>visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or
>authorities; all things were created by him and for him." (NIV)
>
>Actually this is not talking about God, but of His first created Son,
>who we now call "Jesus." And since God only creates good things, the
>"all things" is not referring to evil things, but only good things.

Earlier in this post you wrote

>No. I don't know the mind of God.

Yet here you apparently know the mind of God so well you can
say God only creates good things.
Colossians 1:16 says

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are
in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
him, and for him:

That's very definite on all things meaning all things.
The bible describes many evil and corrupt things God does and
allows, and you are critical of many aspects of God's creation.

>>All those things are covered by Colossians 1:16 which says that God
>>is responsible for every thought and every action.
>>You should stop blaming God's victims for being the way God made
>>them.

>>You are no better than a muslim who blames a rape victim.
>>
>>You should use your influence to organise a world wide boycott
>>of God. Use God's vanity against God to force God to accept
>>responsibility for our problems and to do something to fix
>>the mess he made.
>>Good luck with that!
>
>God will soon take care of the mess HUMANS made of things.

The least God should have done was to provide a warranty
and regular updates.

>He will remove the evil humans. Re 11:18,

God tried that with the world wide flood AND FAILED.

>"...The time has come to destroy those who are destroying the earth."
>(NJB)

Why doesn't God use his magical powers to amend his design?
We all deserve the very best God can give us.

>It is not God who is destroying the earth, it is greedy and wicked
>humans.

Genesis says God trashed every good thing with no excuse.

>When God acted on the earth, he created a small parcel of land
>into a paradise. Then placed Adam and Eve there. So that is God's plan
>to have righteous people living on a paradise earth.

You know what would have been so much better?
If God had not had a hissy fit and trashed everything good.
I would say God's act of creating a paradise he never intended us to
have was an act of pure evil.
You say you don't know the mind of God. In Genesis we get an insight
into the mind of God and its not pretty.

>>>>>You are so wrong about your loving Creator. Don't mix up God's right
>>>>>to punish wrongdoers with evil.
>>>>
>>>>Don't mix up God's might with God's right.
>>>>God may have the might to act immorally but not the right.
>>>
>>>>God does act immorally
>>>
>>>Immorality is defined by God.
>>
>>Not so.
>
>And just who does then?

We must do the best we can.

>Humans have a SENSE of right and wrong. It is
>built into us. Murder, stealing, bullying, etc, most groups of humans
>agree is evil. That is because humans have a built-in conscience.

Do you agree with God that genocide is a useful tool?
Should homosexuals be killed as is done in Iran or should homosexuals
be given the same rights as normal people? Why would God design
mammal brains such that some are homosexual and then call for the
death of those? Wouldn't it make more sense for God to have created
us the way he wants us to be?

>The conscience can be corrupted, but at first it is a good test of right
>and wrong.

Who do you say designed our brain?

>>>And it is humans and disobedient angels who are immoral.
>>
>>Made that way by God so it is God that is immoral.
>
>You can't get further from the truth than that.

We didn't design our own brains so if not God who did design
our brains?

>>>>>God NEVER PUNISHED A RIGHTEOUS HUMAN.
>>>>
>>>>God only punishes people he created.
>>>>Colossians 1:16 - 17
>>>>16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that
>>>>are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or
>>>>dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
>>>>him, and for him:
>>>>17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
>>>
>>>Thus God only punishes people who turn wicked with their free choice.
>>
>>Does your version of God have the ability to correct his errors?
>
>God doesn't make 'errors'. Humans do.

So God intended us to make errors? That is so evil.

>>Or is God too vain to admit to errors?
>>
>God cannot lie, so He can't admit to things He did not do.

Earlier in this post you wrote

>No. I don't know the mind of God.

yet now you seem to know the mind of God in such detail
you can say God does not lie.
You say that in the face of much evidence that God constantly
lies.

I know it is in your interest to promote God by denying evolution
but the fact is that everything points to evolution having happened
over millions of years and many Christians accept evolution without
losing faith in God.

[Silas]

On 1/13/2014 5:31 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 17:46:40 -0500, August Rode <aug....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Theists don't make up stuff. They lack the intellect to do that.
> They can only regurgitate what they are programmed with.
> Try asking a theist to support their claims. They can't.
>

I always thought religion was about faith. So the best a theist can
do is to say I believe - which is not a claim. So what claims can they
make.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:29:42 -0500, Silas <Si...@gmail.com> wrote in
alt.talk.creationism:

>On 1/13/2014 5:31 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 17:46:40 -0500, August Rode <aug....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Theists don't make up stuff. They lack the intellect to do that.
>> They can only regurgitate what they are programmed with.
>> Try asking a theist to support their claims. They can't.
>>
> I always thought religion was about faith. So the best a theist can
>do is to say I believe - which is not a claim. So what claims can they
>make.

For some reason, there are believers who hate it when it is pointed out
that others do not believe because the religious teachings are totally
without evidence.

[duke]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:29:42 -0500, Silas <Si...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 1/13/2014 5:31 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 17:46:40 -0500, August Rode <aug....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Theists don't make up stuff. They lack the intellect to do that.
>> They can only regurgitate what they are programmed with.
>> Try asking a theist to support their claims. They can't.
>>
> I always thought religion was about faith. So the best a theist can
>do is to say I believe - which is not a claim. So what claims can they
>make.

That there is a God almighty and that our time on this earth is a one of test.

duke, American-American
*****
The Obama Adminstration is a disgrace to America
and Americans. The lies, the lies, the lies.
*****

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:25:09 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
alt.talk.creationism:

>On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 02:29:42 -0500, Silas <Si...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 1/13/2014 5:31 PM, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 17:46:40 -0500, August Rode <aug....@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Theists don't make up stuff. They lack the intellect to do that.
>>> They can only regurgitate what they are programmed with.
>>> Try asking a theist to support their claims. They can't.
>>>
>> I always thought religion was about faith. So the best a theist can
>>do is to say I believe - which is not a claim. So what claims can they
>>make.
>
>That there is a God almighty and that our time on this earth is a one of test.

Those are things that you believe even though you know that you have
absolutely no evidence to back those beliefs up.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"Free Lunch" wrote in message

news:8e0cd9lsmce4mq7a9...@4ax.com...

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 07:44:27 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic
Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:
>"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>>"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:
>>>> There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you describe.
>>
>>>There plenty all around you, if you can be bothered to open your eyes.
>
>>No, no, no, no, no.
>
>Yes! yes! yes! yes! yes!
>No-one in their right thinking logical mind would suggest that all the
>heavens
>and the earth and the laws that govern the Universe and the miraculous
>diversity of life
>just on the earth itself, came into being by unintelligent and spasmodic
>mutant
>configurations, better known as sheer blind chance and hopeless
>uncoordinated happenings.
>It just is not feasible even to a 10 year old.
>
>Jeff...

~Jeff refuses to learn any science

Your so-called 'science' is based on unintelligent, spasmodic mutant
configurations, [evolution] and commonly known as sheer lucky blind chance.
Although luck is as good as brains while it lasts......{;o;}

So try and remember 'Nothing can come from nothing'

Jeff...

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 20:22:43 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic

You have no idea what you are talking about and seem to be quite proud
of your ignorant claims.

[Barry OGrady]

[Barry OGrady]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 07:44:27 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic
Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:
>"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>>"Free Lunch" wrote in message news:
>>>> There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you describe.
>>
>>>There plenty all around you, if you can be bothered to open your eyes.
>
>>No, no, no, no, no.
>
>Yes! yes! yes! yes! yes!

Will you be giving us some examples?

You think you know things that you do not actually know.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/08/wise/

>No-one in their right thinking logical mind would suggest that all the
>heavens and the earth and the laws that govern the Universe and the
>miraculous diversity of life just on the earth itself, came into being
>by unintelligent and spasmodic mutant configurations, better known as
>sheer blind chance and hopeless uncoordinated happenings.
>It just is not feasible even to a 10 year old.

No-one in their right thinking logical mind would suggest that a

magical God pre-loaded with all knowledge and power came into

being by unintelligent and spasmodic mutant configurations, better
known as sheer blind chance and hopeless uncoordinated happenings.
It just is not feasible even to a 10 year old.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

>Jeff...

[Steve Wilson]

On 17/01/2014 23:50, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:03:32 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
> wrote:
>> Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>
>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:07:27 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:28:31 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>



>>

>> No. I don't know the mind of God. And we are not JUST another mammal.
>> There is Grand Canyon between an ape and a human being. The human
>> brain has been called the most complex thing in the universe. So other
>> than being flesh and blood, we are miles different from other mammals.
>
> In the case of at least cows, mares, and human females, the genital
> organ is arranged the same. In each case the organ is a slit with the
> end nearest the anus being the entrance to the vagina and the other
> end containing the outlet for urine.
> Besides that we have the same number of limbs, same number of
> ears and eyes, the same sort of brain functionality, and the same
> method of reproduction. All that points to evolution since an almighty
> and all-knowing creator would be expected to make his prime creation
> quite separate from the animals.
>

Do yo think Christians are unaware of the biological similarity with
other animals, especially mammals, that we need someone like you to
point it out? When the Christian says we are the creaturely image of
God, it is not said with reference to our physical bodies. So what
about the incredible non-physical differences between humans and
animals? You say nothing about this, when it is this which really needs
an explanation from the atheist. And contrary to what you assert, I
think it is more to be expected that humans have bodies made of the same
stuff as other animals and this is backed up by the bible when it says
we are made from the dust of the earth, which is a figurative reference
to humans being biologically of this world. If we were quite separate
from other forms of life on earth, we would be aliens. I think you
argument is very weak.

>>
>> Not with free will He isn't. All the animal kingdom is 'programmed' to
>> act certain ways. But not with humans, other than a special guidance
>> mechanism, the conscience.
>
> Like other mammals, a human's thinking and behaviour is directly
> controlled by their brain function. If God designed the human brain
> then God is responsible for every thought and every action.
> If God gave us free will then God is responsible for how we use
> that free will. Free will is not an out for God.
>

You really don't know what you are talking about Goldfish. If we have
no free will, then there is no point in any atheist trying to show
theists the 'error of their thinking' as we think only what we are
biologically determined to think. As such we are incapable of a change
of mind because our thoughts are merely the cause and effect processes
of our biochemical makeup. However you clearly know this is not true
because you presume a change of mind is possible for Christians, for
everyone. So the argument is about how to best explain what we know to
be true; that we have freewill. And how silly of you to assert that if
God gave us free will that he would be responsible for how we use that
free will. That is the same as saying God makes us freely do the right
thing, which is a logical contradiction. If God has created we humans
with free will, then we are responsible to God for our actions and you
are in deep s**t unless you turn to God through Jesus Christ. I've yet
to hear an explanation of how free-will can appear in a universe that is
merely matter and energy in motion. How personality and freewill can
come from inanimate matter and energy is a big problem for the
naturalist/atheist. No doubt you are totally oblivious to this in your
atheist arrogance.

>>> Or is God too vain to admit to errors?
>>>
>> God cannot lie, so He can't admit to things He did not do.
>
> Earlier in this post you wrote
>> No. I don't know the mind of God.
> yet now you seem to know the mind of God in such detail
> you can say God does not lie.
> You say that in the face of much evidence that God constantly
> lies.
>
> I know it is in your interest to promote God by denying evolution
> but the fact is that everything points to evolution having happened
> over millions of years and many Christians accept evolution without
> losing faith in God.
>

As you have put it, evolution is no argument against a creating God
because he could have guided it to produce a rational, self-conscious
being. As such evolution is not the real issue. Yet above you state that
God could not have used evolution because you assert that he would have
made his 'prime creation quite separate (physically) from the animals.
Seems to me you are a little confused, which comes as no real surprise.

The point of difference is not evolution as such but whether evolution
is guided or unguided. If it is unguided then humans are merely the
product of a blind process which never had humans in mind and it is a
mystery where our rationality, free-will comes from.

Steve Wilson

[Barry OGrady]

It does seem that way.

>When the Christian says we are the creaturely image of
>God, it is not said with reference to our physical bodies.

How convenient.

>So what about the incredible non-physical differences between humans
>and animals?

Humans are animals.
The differences between us and OTHER animals is a matter of degree
rather than being absolute. We generally have a higher intelligence
and better abilities to manipulate objects.
We have the same basic needs and wants and the very same method
of reproduction.
Some humans and non-humans have homosexual tendencies.
We suffer from the same ailments.

>You say nothing about this, when it is this which really needs
>an explanation from the atheist. And contrary to what you assert, I
>think it is more to be expected that humans have bodies made of the same
>stuff as other animals and this is backed up by the bible when it says
>we are made from the dust of the earth, which is a figurative reference
>to humans being biologically of this world. If we were quite separate
>from other forms of life on earth, we would be aliens.

The way our bodies and minds are speaks of evolution rather than
custom design by an intelligent creator.

>I think you argument is very weak.

You don't have an argument. You only have a vested interest in
defending the God concept.

>>> Not with free will He isn't. All the animal kingdom is 'programmed' to
>>> act certain ways. But not with humans, other than a special guidance
>>> mechanism, the conscience.
>>
>> Like other mammals, a human's thinking and behaviour is directly
>> controlled by their brain function. If God designed the human brain
>> then God is responsible for every thought and every action.
>> If God gave us free will then God is responsible for how we use
>> that free will. Free will is not an out for God.
>>
>You really don't know what you are talking about Goldfish. If we have
>no free will, then there is no point in any atheist trying to show
>theists the 'error of their thinking' as we think only what we are
>biologically determined to think. As such we are incapable of a change
>of mind because our thoughts are merely the cause and effect processes
>of our biochemical makeup. However you clearly know this is not true
>because you presume a change of mind is possible for Christians, for
>everyone. So the argument is about how to best explain what we know to
>be true; that we have freewill.

Did I say we totally lack free will?
We certainly don't have the sort of free will you promote.

>And how silly of you to assert that if God gave us free will that he
>would be responsible for how we use that free will.

Do you believe God chose the way our brain works?

>That is the same as saying God makes us freely do the right
>thing, which is a logical contradiction. If God has created we humans
>with free will, then we are responsible to God for our actions and you
>are in deep s**t unless you turn to God through Jesus Christ.

What happens if I use my God given free will to reject
God through Jesus Christ? What happens to those people who
are too intelligent to be taken in by the Christian bullshit?

It doesn't surprise me that you would try to use free will as an
out for God's unacceptable behaviour since you tried to
cast doubt on the solid proof of no good and powerful God.

>I've yet to hear an explanation of how free-will can appear in a
>universe that is merely matter and energy in motion.

I've yet to hear an explanation of how a magical God can
appear out of nothing with power and knowledge from
nowhere.

It is far more likely that matter and energy popped out of
nothing or always existed than your magical God.

>How personality and freewill can come from inanimate matter and energy
>is a big problem for the naturalist/atheist. No doubt you are totally
>oblivious to this in your atheist arrogance.

How personality and freewill can come from nothing is a big problem
for the creationist. No doubt you are totally oblivious to this in
your creationist arrogance.

>> I know it is in your interest to promote God by denying evolution
>> but the fact is that everything points to evolution having happened
>> over millions of years and many Christians accept evolution without
>> losing faith in God.
>>
>As you have put it, evolution is no argument against a creating God
>because he could have guided it to produce a rational, self-conscious
>being.

I did not put it that way.

>As such evolution is not the real issue.

There is too much evidence for evolution for you to reject it
completely.

>Yet above you state that
>God could not have used evolution because you assert that he would have
>made his 'prime creation quite separate (physically) from the animals.

God's biggest problem is lack of existence.

>Seems to me you are a little confused, which comes as no real surprise.

You seem to be confusing yourself.
You did say logic tells us God can't exist.

>The point of difference is not evolution as such but whether evolution
>is guided or unguided. If it is unguided then humans are merely the
>product of a blind process which never had humans in mind and it is a
>mystery where our rationality, free-will comes from.

Its true that nobody knows how life originated, but we do know how
life progressed from that early start, and no God has been detected
nor is one needed.

>Steve Wilson

[Steve Wilson]

No it doesn't, it just suits you to presume we Christians blindly deny
the biological similarities so you can press your case for Darwinism.
Even the most fundamentalist of Christians could explain this similarity
as being due to economy of design.

>> When the Christian says we are the creaturely image of
>> God, it is not said with reference to our physical bodies.
>
> How convenient.
>

Convenient? Actually it's very pertinent because it is integral to
Christian theism, not some special add-on invented to defend against
atheism. You concentrate on the physical similarities whilst ignoring
the non-physical differences which actually do set us apart from animals.

>> So what about the incredible non-physical differences between humans
>> and animals?
>
> Humans are animals.
> The differences between us and OTHER animals is a matter of degree
> rather than being absolute. We generally have a higher intelligence
> and better abilities to manipulate objects.

This is a massive understatement about the capabilities of humans.

> We have the same basic needs and wants and the very same method
> of reproduction.

You have returned to physical similarities, which I and many other
Christians do not dispute but which is not what I asked.

> Some humans and non-humans have homosexual tendencies.
> We suffer from the same ailments.
>

Again you appeal to the physical rather than the non-physical capacities
of humans. Seems to me you haven't given any thought to what really
makes humans different form animals.

>> You say nothing about this, when it is this which really needs
>> an explanation from the atheist. And contrary to what you assert, I
>> think it is more to be expected that humans have bodies made of the same
>> stuff as other animals and this is backed up by the bible when it says
>> we are made from the dust of the earth, which is a figurative reference
>> to humans being biologically of this world. If we were quite separate
>>from other forms of life on earth, we would be aliens.
>
> The way our bodies and minds are speaks of evolution rather than
> custom design by an intelligent creator.
>

I think humans possessing rational minds speaks of the existence of God,
not his non-existence.


>> I think you[r] argument is very weak.
>
> You don't have an argument.. . .

Even if I accept for the sake of the argument that I don't have an good
argument, that doesn't mean by default that your argument is strong.
Your argument is still weak.

> . . . . You only have a vested interest in
> defending the God concept.
>
And what vested interest is that?

Keep taking the pills for your cognitive dissonance, you never know they
might take effect one day and overcome you atheistic programming.

>>>> Not with free will He isn't. All the animal kingdom is 'programmed' to
>>>> act certain ways. But not with humans, other than a special guidance
>>>> mechanism, the conscience.
>>>
>>> Like other mammals, a human's thinking and behaviour is directly
>>> controlled by their brain function. If God designed the human brain
>>> then God is responsible for every thought and every action.
>>> If God gave us free will then God is responsible for how we use
>>> that free will. Free will is not an out for God.
>>>
>> You really don't know what you are talking about Goldfish. If we have
>> no free will, then there is no point in any atheist trying to show
>> theists the 'error of their thinking' as we think only what we are
>> biologically determined to think. As such we are incapable of a change
>> of mind because our thoughts are merely the cause and effect processes
>> of our biochemical makeup. However you clearly know this is not true
>> because you presume a change of mind is possible for Christians, for
>> everyone. So the argument is about how to best explain what we know to
>> be true; that we have freewill.
>
> Did I say we totally lack free will?
> We certainly don't have the sort of free will you promote.
>

Then you will have to explain how we can only have partial or apparent
free will. The only Godless explanation I've heard is a kind of soft
determinism, where a magic wand is waved to declare that our freedom is
an emergent property of our complex brains. All this does is put the
problem one step back.

>> And how silly of you to assert that if God gave us free will that he
>> would be responsible for how we use that free will.
>
> Do you believe God chose the way our brain works?
>

We have free-will, that much is common knowledge. And we tacitly
acknowledge this when we punish people for crimes because it assumes
that they have the capacity and knowledge to have known the right and
acted differently.

I think human free-will is easily accounted for if God exists but
extremely difficult to account for on atheism.

>> That is the same as saying God makes us freely do the right
>> thing, which is a logical contradiction. If God has created we humans
>> with free will, then we are responsible to God for our actions and you
>> are in deep s**t unless you turn to God through Jesus Christ.
>
> What happens if I use my God given free will to reject
> God through Jesus Christ? What happens to those people who
> are too intelligent to be taken in by the Christian bullshit?
>

As I said before you are responsible for your actions to God and your
comment amply demonstrates your freedom to reject him. However you will
reap the consequences if you do not repent and freely accept salvation
before your death. And what is more, you will have no excuses when you
appear before God and he will be proven to be just in his sentence upon
you. For you have the moral law within you and God has supplied enough
evidence in the created order for you to know his existence, at least as
creator. Bertrand Russell's boast about what he would say to God after
his death is hollow for there is enough evidence if you have eyes to
see. What blinds atheists is their commitment to naturalism.

And you misunderstand the whole issue if you think it is a matter of the
intelligent versus the unintelligent.

> It doesn't surprise me that you would try to use free will as an
> out for God's unacceptable behaviour since you tried to
> cast doubt on the solid proof of no good and powerful God.
>

What you don't like is that you cannot find a counter argument to it on
the atheistic websites you consult, so you retreat into denial.

>> I've yet to hear an explanation of how free-will can appear in a
>> universe that is merely matter and energy in motion.
>
> I've yet to hear an explanation of how a magical God can
> appear out of nothing with power and knowledge from
> nowhere.
>
> It is far more likely that matter and energy popped out of
> nothing or always existed than your magical God.
>

That is sad, what you are saying is that you would rather embrace total
irrationality that consider the evidence that points to the universe
being created by an unembodied infinite and personal mind (i.e God).

>> How personality and freewill can come from inanimate matter and energy
>> is a big problem for the naturalist/atheist. No doubt you are totally
>> oblivious to this in your atheist arrogance.
>
> How personality and freewill can come from nothing is a big problem
> for the creationist. No doubt you are totally oblivious to this in
> your creationist arrogance.
>

I don't know how you managed to delude yourself into getting this so
back to front. For if God exists as a personal being, we have a ready
explanation for the existence of personality and freewill as it is
sourced in the creator. It is the atheist who is stuck with conjuring
personality and free-will out of inert lifeless matter as John Locke
explained:

"It is as impossible to conceive that ever pure incognitative matter
should produce a thinking intelligent being, as that nothing should of
itself produce matter."
John Locke (Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding IV,x,10

Notice that he compares the production of intelligent beings out of
inert matter as equally impossible as something coming out of nothing.

>>> I know it is in your interest to promote God by denying evolution
>>> but the fact is that everything points to evolution having happened
>>> over millions of years and many Christians accept evolution without
>>> losing faith in God.
>>>
>> As you have put it, evolution is no argument against a creating God
>> because he could have guided it to produce a rational, self-conscious
>> being.
>
> I did not put it that way.
>

I think your argument is muddled. You routinely use evolution to
disprove the existence of God by attacking the literal interpretation of
genesis, but at the same time highlight that some Christians accept that
some form of evolution has occurred. It seems you do not realise the the
real issue is whether evolution is unguided or guided. Seems to me you
do not disprove the existence of God even if you manage to disprove the
literal interpretation of Genesis.

>> As such evolution is not the real issue.
>
> There is too much evidence for evolution for you to reject it
> completely.
>

Here is a quote from Brian Goodwin, How the Leopard Changed its Spots
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. ix

"It appears that Darwin's theory works for the small-scale aspects of
evolution: it can explain the variations and the adaptations with
species that produce fine-tuning of varieties to different habitats. The
large-scale differences of form between types of organism that are the
foundation of the biological classification systems seem to require
another principle than natural selection operating on small variation,
some process that gives rise to distinctly different forms of organism.
This is the problem of emergent order in evolution, the origins of novel
structures in organisms, which has always been one of the primary foci
of attention in biology." [end of quote]

And I agree with him. I find Darwinism to be wholly insufficient to
account for the vast array of different types of living organisms from
one common ancestor. However I am open to the notion that biological
change has occurred over time, and that God may have intervened at
critical points to direct it they way he wanted. What I reject as wholly
implausible is the naturalistic notion that evolution is unguided.

>
>> The point of difference is not evolution as such but whether evolution
>> is guided or unguided. If it is unguided then humans are merely the
>> product of a blind process which never had humans in mind and it is a
>> mystery where our rationality, free-will comes from.
>
> Its true that nobody knows how life originated, but we do know how
> life progressed from that early start, and no God has been detected
> nor is one needed.
>

You admit nobody knows how life originated but you do know that it does
not involve God? So now your naturalistic beliefs are coming to the
surface. The reason you cannot find evidence for God is that your
philosophical beliefs prevent you from seeing the evidence and following
it to its conclusions. For you there can never be any evidence for the
existence of God, so if you are presented with it you automatically
dismiss it because it just cannot be valid.

Steve Wilson

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:02:19 +0000, Steve Wilson

As if an almighty and all-knowing creator would need to economise.
Why didn't God economise with insects and snakes?
You are grasping at straws.

>>> When the Christian says we are the creaturely image of
>>> God, it is not said with reference to our physical bodies.
>>
>> How convenient.
>>
>Convenient? Actually it's very pertinent because it is integral to
>Christian theism, not some special add-on invented to defend against
>atheism. You concentrate on the physical similarities whilst ignoring
>the non-physical differences which actually do set us apart from animals.

Rather convenient that our differences are in areas that can't be
seen or detected.

>>> So what about the incredible non-physical differences between humans
>>> and animals?
>>
>> Humans are animals.
>> The differences between us and OTHER animals is a matter of degree
>> rather than being absolute. We generally have a higher intelligence
>> and better abilities to manipulate objects.
>
>This is a massive understatement about the capabilities of humans.

In what way?

>> We have the same basic needs and wants and the very same method
>> of reproduction.
>
>You have returned to physical similarities, which I and many other
>Christians do not dispute but which is not what I asked.

It is the physical aspect of the brain that determines our thoughts
and actions.
Apes are smarter than 2 year old children.
Adults with Down's Syndrome behave like children because their
brain is not fully developed.

>> Some humans and non-humans have homosexual tendencies.
>> We suffer from the same ailments.
>>
>Again you appeal to the physical rather than the non-physical capacities
>of humans.

Our superior thinking abilities are due to a physical aspect as is
our superior ability to manipulate things.

>Seems to me you haven't given any thought to what really
>makes humans different form animals.

There is no difference. Humans are animals.
Economy of design! LOL!

>>> You say nothing about this, when it is this which really needs
>>> an explanation from the atheist. And contrary to what you assert, I
>>> think it is more to be expected that humans have bodies made of the same
>>> stuff as other animals and this is backed up by the bible when it says
>>> we are made from the dust of the earth, which is a figurative reference
>>> to humans being biologically of this world. If we were quite separate
>>>from other forms of life on earth, we would be aliens.
>>
>> The way our bodies and minds are speaks of evolution rather than
>> custom design by an intelligent creator.
>>
>
>I think humans possessing rational minds speaks of the existence of God,
>not his non-existence.

What does God possessing a rational mind speak of?

>>> I think you[r] argument is very weak.
>>
>> You don't have an argument.. . .
>
>Even if I accept for the sake of the argument that I don't have an good
>argument, that doesn't mean by default that your argument is strong.
>Your argument is still weak.

Feel free to correct me.

>> . . . . You only have a vested interest in
>> defending the God concept.
>>
>And what vested interest is that?

If it is not your source of income you lack the free will to admit you
have been lied to.

>>>>> Not with free will He isn't. All the animal kingdom is 'programmed' to
>>>>> act certain ways. But not with humans, other than a special guidance
>>>>> mechanism, the conscience.
>>>>
>>>> Like other mammals, a human's thinking and behaviour is directly
>>>> controlled by their brain function. If God designed the human brain
>>>> then God is responsible for every thought and every action.
>>>> If God gave us free will then God is responsible for how we use
>>>> that free will. Free will is not an out for God.
>>>>
>>> You really don't know what you are talking about Goldfish. If we have
>>> no free will, then there is no point in any atheist trying to show
>>> theists the 'error of their thinking' as we think only what we are
>>> biologically determined to think. As such we are incapable of a change
>>> of mind because our thoughts are merely the cause and effect processes
>>> of our biochemical makeup. However you clearly know this is not true
>>> because you presume a change of mind is possible for Christians, for
>>> everyone. So the argument is about how to best explain what we know to
>>> be true; that we have freewill.
>>
>> Did I say we totally lack free will?
>> We certainly don't have the sort of free will you promote.
>>
>Then you will have to explain how we can only have partial or apparent
>free will. The only Godless explanation I've heard is a kind of soft
>determinism, where a magic wand is waved to declare that our freedom is
>an emergent property of our complex brains. All this does is put the
>problem one step back.

Our choices are either influenced or random.

>>> And how silly of you to assert that if God gave us free will that he
>>> would be responsible for how we use that free will.
>>
>> Do you believe God chose the way our brain works?
>>
>We have free-will, that much is common knowledge. And we tacitly
>acknowledge this when we punish people for crimes because it assumes
>that they have the capacity and knowledge to have known the right and
>acted differently.

Sometimes a person is found not guilty due to diminished
responsibility. There are places where child molesters are held after
they have completed their prison term because it is believed they will
certainly offend again. Why is it that most men would not molest a
child if you paid them but some can't help themselves? Why is it
that most men are sexually attracted to women and find the thought
of sex with a man repulsive but some men are sexually attracted
to men and find the thought of sex with a women repulsive?
Do you think they choose their sexuality?
Why is it necessary to choose not to drive before you get drunk?
Why did the railway worker's personality change after a rail
spike went through his brain?

>I think human free-will is easily accounted for if God exists but
>extremely difficult to account for on atheism.

How do you define free will?

>>> That is the same as saying God makes us freely do the right
>>> thing, which is a logical contradiction. If God has created we humans
>>> with free will, then we are responsible to God for our actions and you
>>> are in deep s**t unless you turn to God through Jesus Christ.
>>
>> What happens if I use my God given free will to reject
>> God through Jesus Christ? What happens to those people who
>> are too intelligent to be taken in by the Christian bullshit?
>>
>
>As I said before you are responsible for your actions to God and your
>comment amply demonstrates your freedom to reject him.

I don't have the freedom to choose God.

>However you will reap the consequences if you do not repent and freely
>accept salvation before your death.

You have a very strange idea of freedom.

>And what is more, you will have no excuses when you
>appear before God and he will be proven to be just in his sentence upon
>you.

I disagree.

>For you have the moral law within you and God has supplied enough
>evidence in the created order for you to know his existence, at least as
>creator.

Does God have any responsibility for making himself and his laws
known? I use my superior abilities to improve the lives of my animals
and they respond by trusting me and by being gentle.
If God was to use the same techniques with us he would find we
respond much better. But perhaps God is economising by leaving
us to our own devices. LOL!

>Bertrand Russell's boast about what he would say to God after
>his death is hollow for there is enough evidence if you have eyes to
>see. What blinds atheists is their commitment to naturalism.

What if I was to explain to God that he is responsible for everything
and what if I was to tell God how he should behave? Would God's
pride get in the way of him being good to us?

>And you misunderstand the whole issue if you think it is a matter of the
>intelligent versus the unintelligent.

Sometimes the more intelligent a person the less they can relate
to the real world. You use your intelligence the wrong way.

>> It doesn't surprise me that you would try to use free will as an
>> out for God's unacceptable behaviour since you tried to
>> cast doubt on the solid proof of no good and powerful God.
>>
>What you don't like is that you cannot find a counter argument to it on
>the atheistic websites you consult, so you retreat into denial.

You were unable to come up with a way for God to be good
without being good, and your freewill argument is just putting
the blame on God's victims.

>>> I've yet to hear an explanation of how free-will can appear in a
>>> universe that is merely matter and energy in motion.
>>
>> I've yet to hear an explanation of how a magical God can
>> appear out of nothing with power and knowledge from
>> nowhere.
>>
>> It is far more likely that matter and energy popped out of
>> nothing or always existed than your magical God.
>>
>That is sad, what you are saying is that you would rather embrace total
>irrationality that consider the evidence that points to the universe
>being created by an unembodied infinite and personal mind (i.e God).

What is sad is that you have no argument.
If simple life coming from nothing is unlikely then a complex magical
being is impossible.

>>> How personality and freewill can come from inanimate matter and energy
>>> is a big problem for the naturalist/atheist. No doubt you are totally
>>> oblivious to this in your atheist arrogance.
>>
>> How personality and freewill can come from nothing is a big problem
>> for the creationist. No doubt you are totally oblivious to this in
>> your creationist arrogance.
>>
>I don't know how you managed to delude yourself into getting this so
>back to front. For if God exists as a personal being, we have a ready
>explanation for the existence of personality and freewill as it is
>sourced in the creator.

Did the creator source it's own personality and freewill?

> It is the atheist who is stuck with conjuring
>personality and free-will out of inert lifeless matter as John Locke
>explained:
>
>"It is as impossible to conceive that ever pure incognitative matter
>should produce a thinking intelligent being, as that nothing should of
>itself produce matter."
>John Locke (Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding IV,x,10
>
>Notice that he compares the production of intelligent beings out of
>inert matter as equally impossible as something coming out of nothing.

The more you argue against something from nothing the more you
argue against the existence of your God.
Where did God get its thinking abilities?

>>>> I know it is in your interest to promote God by denying evolution
>>>> but the fact is that everything points to evolution having happened
>>>> over millions of years and many Christians accept evolution without
>>>> losing faith in God.
>>>>
>>> As you have put it, evolution is no argument against a creating God
>>> because he could have guided it to produce a rational, self-conscious
>>> being.
>>
>> I did not put it that way.
>>
>I think your argument is muddled.

I think you wish my argument was muddled because you have no comeback.

>You routinely use evolution to
>disprove the existence of God by attacking the literal interpretation of
>genesis, but at the same time highlight that some Christians accept that
>some form of evolution has occurred. It seems you do not realise the the
>real issue is whether evolution is unguided or guided. Seems to me you
>do not disprove the existence of God even if you manage to disprove the
>literal interpretation of Genesis.

If Genesis is wrong what else is wrong in the bible?
How do you decide which parts of the bible are true?

>>> As such evolution is not the real issue.
>>
>> There is too much evidence for evolution for you to reject it
>> completely.
>>
>
>Here is a quote from Brian Goodwin, How the Leopard Changed its Spots
>(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. ix
>
>"It appears that Darwin's theory works for the small-scale aspects of
>evolution: it can explain the variations and the adaptations with
>species that produce fine-tuning of varieties to different habitats. The
>large-scale differences of form between types of organism that are the
>foundation of the biological classification systems seem to require
>another principle than natural selection operating on small variation,
>some process that gives rise to distinctly different forms of organism.
>This is the problem of emergent order in evolution, the origins of novel
>structures in organisms, which has always been one of the primary foci
>of attention in biology." [end of quote]
>
>And I agree with him. I find Darwinism to be wholly insufficient to
>account for the vast array of different types of living organisms from
>one common ancestor. However I am open to the notion that biological
>change has occurred over time, and that God may have intervened at
>critical points to direct it they way he wanted. What I reject as wholly
>implausible is the naturalistic notion that evolution is unguided.

You also reject the idea that God created everything in one week.

>>> The point of difference is not evolution as such but whether evolution
>>> is guided or unguided. If it is unguided then humans are merely the
>>> product of a blind process which never had humans in mind and it is a
>>> mystery where our rationality, free-will comes from.
>>
>> Its true that nobody knows how life originated, but we do know how
>> life progressed from that early start, and no God has been detected
>> nor is one needed.
>>
>
>You admit nobody knows how life originated but you do know that it does
>not involve God?

We know when and why God was created.

>So now your naturalistic beliefs are coming to the
>surface. The reason you cannot find evidence for God is that your
>philosophical beliefs prevent you from seeing the evidence and following
>it to its conclusions. For you there can never be any evidence for the
>existence of God, so if you are presented with it you automatically
>dismiss it because it just cannot be valid.

If there was a God I would want to know, but the God claims are
radical and require radical evidence which you don't have.
OTOH you can never accept that you could be wrong so no amount
of logic, reasoning, or evidence will convince you. It appears that
your free will is malfunctioning.

Please don't hold back for the sake of my feelings. If you have
something that will make a mockery of my understandings
go ahead and present it.
So far you have made assertions which you can't back up and
you try to cover up your shortcomings with bluster and denigration.

The reason you can't come up with evidence for God is that there
is none due to there being no God.

Some atheists feel they should treat believers with respect but I
say we should call theists on their foolishness and should mock
religion at every opportunity.

[Barry OGrady]

[Steve Wilson]

On 25/01/2014 11:55, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:02:19 +0000, Steve Wilson
> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

I'm busy at the moment but when things settle down I'll get back to
composing my reply.

Steve Wilson

[Barry OGrady]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 13:05:30 +0000, Steve Wilson

<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 25/01/2014 11:55, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:02:19 +0000, Steve Wilson
>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>
>
>I'm busy at the moment but when things settle down I'll get back to
>composing my reply.

I look forward to it.

>Steve Wilson

--
If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!

(In the biblical sense)

[Steve Wilson]

On 20/01/2014 06:58, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:02:19 +0000, Steve Wilson
> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 19/01/2014 04:18, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:00:41 +0000, Steve Wilson
>>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 17/01/2014 23:50, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:03:32 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:07:27 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:28:31 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>>
>>>>



>>>>

>>>> Do yo think Christians are unaware of the biological similarity with
>>>> other animals, especially mammals, that we need someone like you to
>>>> point it out?
>>>
>>> It does seem that way.
>>>
>> No it doesn't, it just suits you to presume we Christians blindly deny
>> the biological similarities so you can press your case for Darwinism.
>> Even the most fundamentalist of Christians could explain this similarity
>> as being due to economy of design.
>
> As if an almighty and all-knowing creator would need to economise.
> Why didn't God economise with insects and snakes?
> You are grasping at straws.
>

I'm merely showing you that you are terribly naive if you think that
Christians are like deer caught in the glare of a car's headlights
regards biological similarity. Biologicial similarity can easily be
explained by a designer. In fact isn't Richard Dawkins whole position
one of explaining away the apparent design we observe in nature?

>>>> When the Christian says we are the creaturely image of
>>>> God, it is not said with reference to our physical bodies.
>>>
>>> How convenient.
>>>
>> Convenient? Actually it's very pertinent because it is integral to
>> Christian theism, not some special add-on invented to defend against
>> atheism. You concentrate on the physical similarities whilst ignoring
>> the non-physical differences which actually do set us apart from animals.
>
> Rather convenient that our differences are in areas that can't be
> seen or detected.
>

Well it might be convenient for you to ignore our conceptual capacities
in the interests of trying to make Christianity look silly.

And you say that our conceptual capacities are undetectable, but are
they? How about our rational faculties and moral awareness? How about
our capacity to wonder about how and why we are here? Even our capacity
create theories such as Darwinism? Are these things undetectable? All
we have to do is observe ourselves and talk to one another. Instead of
being undetectable, they are obvious.

>>>> So what about the incredible non-physical differences between humans
>>>> and animals?
>>>
>>> Humans are animals.
>>> The differences between us and OTHER animals is a matter of degree
>>> rather than being absolute. We generally have a higher intelligence
>>> and better abilities to manipulate objects.
>>
>> This is a massive understatement about the capabilities of humans.
>
> In what way?
>

In that you reduce art, music, language, writing, rationality, our moral
awareness, our awareness of the laws of logic and our desire to know our
origins down to the level of just being slightly better abilities than
animals. These things, which identify us as human, are not merely
quantitative differences but qualitative.

>>> We have the same basic needs and wants and the very same method
>>> of reproduction.
>>
>> You have returned to physical similarities, which I and many other
>> Christians do not dispute but which is not what I asked.
>
> It is the physical aspect of the brain that determines our thoughts
> and actions.

If so, then we are walled up in determinism and there is no hope of
either one of us having a change of mind. For what we think and do is
merely the end process our cause and effect biological bodies. Clearly
this is nonsense because the very basis of discussion presupposes that
we have the freedom to think through issues by weighing up the evidence
and coming to a conclusion. So your presence on this n.g contradicts
your own comment. But then such is the double-think of atheism.

> Apes are smarter than 2 year old children.

That is not saying much because a 3 year old child is smarter than an
adult Ape. So it seems that our very similar DNA does not account for
the great difference between ourselves and Apes. Genetic makeup is only
part of the story and something else is at work, which the naturalistic
world-view cannot philosophically accept.

> Adults with Down's Syndrome behave like children because their
> brain is not fully developed.
>

So? Yet we recognise that they are persons. But if it is as you say
then why don't we put them down like we do with animals? Instead we
make the deep assumption that they are still persons and we have a moral
obligation to treat them as humans whether we do or not. Take away God
and this world would be a very different and infinitely darker place
where the human animal is put down the moment he/she is no longer useful
to society or is defective in some way. We had a taste of the horrors
of unfettered atheism during the first half of the 20th century which
out-did the atrocities performed in the name of Christianity throughout
all it's 2000 year history.

>>> Some humans and non-humans have homosexual tendencies.
>>> We suffer from the same ailments.
>>>
>> Again you appeal to the physical rather than the non-physical capacities
>> of humans.
>
> Our superior thinking abilities are due to a physical aspect as is
> our superior ability to manipulate things.
>

The problem with your argument is that this is all we are and thus we
become merely biochemical machines without any freedom. Clearly this is
at odds with what we know ourselves to be. The Christian view is much
better; yes we have our biological bodies, and damage to it can have
profound effects, but we also have a non-physical mind which expresses
itself through the mechanism of the body but is not a product of it. And
we have an explanation for the existence of mind because the cause of
the Universe is infinite mind. As the originator of the universe is an
infinite mind (God) it is to expected that he might want create
creatures with minds too. 0

>> Seems to me you haven't given any thought to what really
>> makes humans different form animals.
>
> There is no difference. Humans are animals.
> Economy of design! LOL!
>

So why is it wrong to eat a sibling or rape a female when all these
things and more routinely occur in nature? Why do we know these things
are objectively wrong if done by humans and not merely social taboos? If
we are just relatively evolved animals you owe the Christian an
explanation of where this qualitative difference comes from. For months
now you have blanked me and even claimed that I have given no arguments
to counter the atheists logical argument from the existence of evil.
Seems to me atheism is like the Emperor who thinks he's wearing the
finest clothes but is actually naked.

>>>> You say nothing about this, when it is this which really needs
>>>> an explanation from the atheist. And contrary to what you assert, I
>>>> think it is more to be expected that humans have bodies made of the same
>>>> stuff as other animals and this is backed up by the bible when it says
>>>> we are made from the dust of the earth, which is a figurative reference
>>>> to humans being biologically of this world. If we were quite separate
>>> >from other forms of life on earth, we would be aliens.
>>>
>>> The way our bodies and minds are speaks of evolution rather than
>>> custom design by an intelligent creator.
>>>
>>
>> I think humans possessing rational minds speaks of the existence of God,
>> not his non-existence.
>
> What does God possessing a rational mind speak of?
>

That the universe is a rational place where we can predict the existence
of something which has not yet been discovered. The Higgs Boson is one
recent example. The regularity of the universe is staggering when you
think about it but difficult to explain on atheism. Yet it is precisely
what we would expect on biblical theism.

>>>>>
>>>> You really don't know what you are talking about Goldfish. If we have
>>>> no free will, then there is no point in any atheist trying to show
>>>> theists the 'error of their thinking' as we think only what we are
>>>> biologically determined to think. As such we are incapable of a change
>>>> of mind because our thoughts are merely the cause and effect processes
>>>> of our biochemical makeup. However you clearly know this is not true
>>>> because you presume a change of mind is possible for Christians, for
>>>> everyone. So the argument is about how to best explain what we know to
>>>> be true; that we have freewill.
>>>
>>> Did I say we totally lack free will?
>>> We certainly don't have the sort of free will you promote.
>>>
>> Then you will have to explain how we can only have partial or apparent
>> free will. The only Godless explanation I've heard is a kind of soft
>> determinism, where a magic wand is waved to declare that our freedom is
>> an emergent property of our complex brains. All this does is put the
>> problem one step back.
>
> Our choices are either influenced or random.
>

You need to explain this more based on your atheist belief that we are
merely biological machines. It will be interesting to see how you
attempt to escape biological determinism.

>>>> And how silly of you to assert that if God gave us free will that he
>>>> would be responsible for how we use that free will.
>>>
>>> Do you believe God chose the way our brain works?
>>>
>> We have free-will, that much is common knowledge. And we tacitly
>> acknowledge this when we punish people for crimes because it assumes
>> that they have the capacity and knowledge to have known the right and
>> acted differently.
>
> Sometimes a person is found not guilty due to diminished
> responsibility.

So how does this support your belief that we are merely relatively
evolved animals? For animals are not guilty of any crime as they are not
moral beings.

> There are places where child molesters are held after
> they have completed their prison term because it is believed they will
> certainly offend again.

Again, how does this support your belief that we are merely relatively
evolved animals when administering justice speaks of morally aware
beings who are able to do otherwise than what they actually do? All
this example would reveal is that the authorities judged that the
paedophiles have not chosen to change, not that they lack the ability to
change. If they were not moral beings with the intrinsic ability to
choose what they do, we would castrate them or even have them put down.

> Why is it that most men would not molest a
> child if you paid them but some can't help themselves? Why is it
> that most men are sexually attracted to women and find the thought
> of sex with a man repulsive but some men are sexually attracted
> to men and find the thought of sex with a women repulsive?
> Do you think they choose their sexuality?

I think there is a growing phenomena of persons desiring to experiment
with what they might not otherwise countenance because of societal
encouragement via the internet, media and government legislation, but on
the whole I don't think the majority do. However that is not the issue.
The issue is whether any of those you mention can choose not to engage
in sexual activity. I think the answer to that we do possess the
ability to refrain; to control our desires, even if it is not easy.
Animals do not possess this capacity for self-control as they lack
self-awareness. If we are not moral beings then it makes no sense to
judge paedophiles as doing something immoral as it is natural to them
and they cannot do otherwise. The most that could be said is that
paedophiles are going against the present social convention but not that
paedophilia is really wrong. And you need to explain to me why it is
wrong for a human male to have forced copulation with a child/female but
not for animals.

> Why is it necessary to choose not to drive before you get drunk?
> Why did the railway worker's personality change after a rail
> spike went through his brain?
>

The difference is that on your naturalistic assumptions we can only be
the output of our brains, but that doesn't fit with what we know about
ourselves. And science is still at a loss as to what consciousness is
so I don't know how you can assert that our consciousness and
self-identity is merely a phenomenon of the brain. Contrary to this,
Christianity says we have this physical organ called the brain but there
is a non-physical person who exists as well. As an illustration, the
brain can be compared to a piano whilst the pianist can be compared to
the non-physical element which is the person. If the piano gets
damaged, then the pianist cannot express himself no matter how often he
hits the affected keys. So citing examples of brain damage as proof
that we are merely organic machines is somewhat unconvincing.


Also, the difference between the biblical theist and the
naturalist/atheist is that on Godless view the conclusion that we are
merely machines and therefore all our thoughts and actions are
determined by our biology is hard to avoid; we may think we have freedom
of mind but it is all really an illusion. However the biblical theist
has a source of mind in God, and thus we have a basis for real minds
that can make real choices even though the mind is dependent upon the
hardware of the brain to express intentions in the physical world.

>> I think human free-will is easily accounted for if God exists but
>> extremely difficult to account for on atheism.
>
> How do you define free will?
>

To be able to make choices between alternatives and have intentionality.
How do you account for free will in a Godless world that is merely
lifeless matter and energy?

>>>> That is the same as saying God makes us freely do the right
>>>> thing, which is a logical contradiction. If God has created we humans
>>>> with free will, then we are responsible to God for our actions and you
>>>> are in deep s**t unless you turn to God through Jesus Christ.
>>>
>>> What happens if I use my God given free will to reject
>>> God through Jesus Christ? What happens to those people who
>>> are too intelligent to be taken in by the Christian bullshit?
>>>
>>
>> As I said before you are responsible for your actions to God and your
>> comment amply demonstrates your freedom to reject him.
>
> I don't have the freedom to choose God.
>

You comment is a falsehood. If you don't have the freedom to choose God
then I don't have the freedom to become an atheist and there is no point
to any discussion at all. Yet here you are on this n.g.

>> However you will reap the consequences if you do not repent and freely
>> accept salvation before your death.
>
> You have a very strange idea of freedom.
>
>> And what is more, you will have no excuses when you
>> appear before God and he will be proven to be just in his sentence upon
>> you.
>
> I disagree.
>

So you disagree, so what?

>> For you have the moral law within you and God has supplied enough
>> evidence in the created order for you to know his existence, at least as
>> creator.
>
> Does God have any responsibility for making himself and his laws
> known?

He has done so and many have responded to the evidence he has provided
by confessing their sins and trusting on Christ for their salvation. You
have inoculated yourself the the evidence that is all around you by
denying that there can be anything beyond this physical universe
(naturalism).

> I use my superior abilities to improve the lives of my animals
> and they respond by trusting me and by being gentle.
> If God was to use the same techniques with us he would find we
> respond much better. But perhaps God is economising by leaving
> us to our own devices. LOL!
>

Well for a start you are not the creator of your pets and as such did
not choose whether or not they should be beings with free will. God
chose to create humans with free will in the hope that many would freely
choose salvation and enter into eternal life with him. So basically I'm
saying your comparison is not like-for-like because you and your animals
are on the same level in the sense that you are a created creature too.

>> Bertrand Russell's boast about what he would say to God after
>> his death is hollow for there is enough evidence if you have eyes to
>> see. What blinds atheists is their commitment to naturalism.
>
> What if I was to explain to God that he is responsible for everything
> and what if I was to tell God how he should behave? Would God's
> pride get in the way of him being good to us?
>
>> And you misunderstand the whole issue if you think it is a matter of the
>> intelligent versus the unintelligent.
>
> Sometimes the more intelligent a person the less they can relate
> to the real world. You use your intelligence the wrong way.
>

That is very biased. What you mean is that intelligent people will
always see that atheism is true but lots of intelligent people see that
Christianity is true and atheism false. Basically you are trying to
write me off because I don't conform to your idea of how Christians
should be.

>>> It doesn't surprise me that you would try to use free will as an
>>> out for God's unacceptable behaviour since you tried to
>>> cast doubt on the solid proof of no good and powerful God.
>>>
>> What you don't like is that you cannot find a counter argument to it on
>> the atheistic websites you consult, so you retreat into denial.
>
> You were unable to come up with a way for God to be good
> without being good, and your freewill argument is just putting
> the blame on God's victims.
>

As always, you ascribe to Christianity a god of your own invention and
then fault Christianity for believing in this god. You shouldn't be
surprised that Christians do not take you as a serious critic.

>>>> I've yet to hear an explanation of how free-will can appear in a
>>>> universe that is merely matter and energy in motion.
>>>
>>> I've yet to hear an explanation of how a magical God can
>>> appear out of nothing with power and knowledge from
>>> nowhere.
>>>
>>> It is far more likely that matter and energy popped out of
>>> nothing or always existed than your magical God.
>>>
>> That is sad, what you are saying is that you would rather embrace total
>> irrationality that consider the evidence that points to the universe
>> being created by an unembodied infinite and personal mind (i.e God).
>
> What is sad is that you have no argument.
> If simple life coming from nothing is unlikely then a complex magical
> being is impossible.
>

By very nature God cannot not exist. It is not irrational to conclude
such a being exists because mind and personality cannot come from
lifeless atoms.

>>>> How personality and freewill can come from inanimate matter and energy
>>>> is a big problem for the naturalist/atheist. No doubt you are totally
>>>> oblivious to this in your atheist arrogance.
>>>
>>> How personality and freewill can come from nothing is a big problem
>>> for the creationist. No doubt you are totally oblivious to this in
>>> your creationist arrogance.
>>>
>> I don't know how you managed to delude yourself into getting this so
>> back to front. For if God exists as a personal being, we have a ready
>> explanation for the existence of personality and freewill as it is
>> sourced in the creator.
>
> Did the creator source it's own personality and freewill?
>

He is a necessary being, which means he was not caused to be by
something or someone else. You clearly do not want to accept that if God
is God, he is necessarily self-existent by definition in all possible
worlds.

>> It is the atheist who is stuck with conjuring
>> personality and free-will out of inert lifeless matter as John Locke
>> explained:
>>
>> "It is as impossible to conceive that ever pure incognitative matter
>> should produce a thinking intelligent being, as that nothing should of
>> itself produce matter."
>> John Locke (Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding IV,x,10
>>
>> Notice that he compares the production of intelligent beings out of
>> inert matter as equally impossible as something coming out of nothing.
>
> The more you argue against something from nothing the more you
> argue against the existence of your God.
> Where did God get its thinking abilities?
>

How about addressing my comment instead of ignoring it and throwing
something else back? Seems to me, you not only have no explanation for
the universe coming out of nothing but intelligent beings coming from
inanimate matter too. Are you going to play the 'honesty' card again
and from your bankrupt position demand that I be honest too in an
dishonest attempt to blunt the force of atheism's inability to provide a
coherent explanation for either of these two?

>>>>> I know it is in your interest to promote God by denying evolution
>>>>> but the fact is that everything points to evolution having happened
>>>>> over millions of years and many Christians accept evolution without
>>>>> losing faith in God.
>>>>>
>>>> As you have put it, evolution is no argument against a creating God
>>>> because he could have guided it to produce a rational, self-conscious
>>>> being.
>>>
>>> I did not put it that way.
>>>
>> I think your argument is muddled.
>
> I think you wish my argument was muddled because you have no comeback.
>
>> You routinely use evolution to
>> disprove the existence of God by attacking the literal interpretation of
>> genesis, but at the same time highlight that some Christians accept that
>> some form of evolution has occurred. It seems you do not realise the the
>> real issue is whether evolution is unguided or guided. Seems to me you
>> do not disprove the existence of God even if you manage to disprove the
>> literal interpretation of Genesis.
>
> If Genesis is wrong what else is wrong in the bible?
> How do you decide which parts of the bible are true?
>

If the literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong all is means is the
literal interpretation is wrong, not that Genesis is actually wrong. To
me it is clear that Genesis is not a scientific document, but a
theological one. It is telling us true truths about God and man and
gives a sketchy outline of creation which is not at odds with the big
bang. You often attack the literal interpretation as if by doing so you
destroy Christianity, but you do not. To undermine Christianity you
have to disprove the resurrection of Christ.

>>>> As such evolution is not the real issue.
>>>
>>> There is too much evidence for evolution for you to reject it
>>> completely.
>>>
>>
>> Here is a quote from Brian Goodwin, How the Leopard Changed its Spots
>> (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. ix
>>
>> "It appears that Darwin's theory works for the small-scale aspects of
>> evolution: it can explain the variations and the adaptations with
>> species that produce fine-tuning of varieties to different habitats. The
>> large-scale differences of form between types of organism that are the
>> foundation of the biological classification systems seem to require
>> another principle than natural selection operating on small variation,
>> some process that gives rise to distinctly different forms of organism.
>> This is the problem of emergent order in evolution, the origins of novel
>> structures in organisms, which has always been one of the primary foci
>> of attention in biology." [end of quote]
>>
>> And I agree with him. I find Darwinism to be wholly insufficient to
>> account for the vast array of different types of living organisms from
>> one common ancestor. However I am open to the notion that biological
>> change has occurred over time, and that God may have intervened at
>> critical points to direct it they way he wanted. What I reject as wholly
>> implausible is the naturalistic notion that evolution is unguided.
>
> You also reject the idea that God created everything in one week.
>

Genesis is a figurative account not a literal one. One only has to read
about the creation of Eve to see this. And Moses would have known that
it takes much longer than a day for trees to grow. There are deep
truths in Genesis but it is couched in figurative language and utilising
and adapting the Babylonians creation story.

>>>> The point of difference is not evolution as such but whether evolution
>>>> is guided or unguided. If it is unguided then humans are merely the
>>>> product of a blind process which never had humans in mind and it is a
>>>> mystery where our rationality, free-will comes from.
>>>
>>> Its true that nobody knows how life originated, but we do know how
>>> life progressed from that early start, and no God has been detected
>>> nor is one needed.
>>>
>>
>> You admit nobody knows how life originated but you do know that it does
>> not involve God?
>
> We know when and why God was created.
>

How can you possibly know that? Even Dawkins advert on the side of
London buses a few years ago had to include the words; 'There probably
isn't a God, so . . . '. The truth of the matter is that the existence
of evil in the world does not disprove the existence of God, and
actually demonstrates his existence.

>> So now your naturalistic beliefs are coming to the
>> surface. The reason you cannot find evidence for God is that your
>> philosophical beliefs prevent you from seeing the evidence and following
>> it to its conclusions. For you there can never be any evidence for the
>> existence of God, so if you are presented with it you automatically
>> dismiss it because it just cannot be valid.
>
> If there was a God I would want to know, but the God claims are
> radical and require radical evidence which you don't have.
> OTOH you can never accept that you could be wrong so no amount
> of logic, reasoning, or evidence will convince you. It appears that
> your free will is malfunctioning.
>

Why is it radical, and why does it need radical evidence? All I have to
do is point to the evidence that does exist and use logical arguments.
If you choose to artificially filter these out because of your
philosophically truncated beliefs, then the problem is clearly on your
side.

> Please don't hold back for the sake of my feelings. If you have
> something that will make a mockery of my understandings
> go ahead and present it.

Your naturalistic beliefs are your problem as it stops you going where
the evidence leads, once all the natural explanations and evidences have
been exhausted.

> So far you have made assertions which you can't back up and
> you try to cover up your shortcomings with bluster and denigration.
>

You're in denial mode again. You fool only yourself.

> The reason you can't come up with evidence for God is that there
> is none due to there being no God.
>

There is good evidence but you are philosophically inoculated against
it. You cannot even admit there can be evidence even though it is
staring you in face, because according to naturalism, there can be no
supernatural explanations. Therefore any evidence for a supernatural
explanation just cannot be evidence by very definition.

> Some atheists feel they should treat believers with respect but I
> say we should call theists on their foolishness and should mock
> religion at every opportunity.
>

Argumentum ad Derision does nothing to disprove the claims of
Christianity and makes those who resort to it look like arrogant fools
with no good arguments.

Steve Wilson

[Barry OGrady]

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:07:08 +0000, Steve Wilson

I am getting the distinct feeling that for you Christianity is like a
computer game. You have to answer questions before you can
move to the next level or even stay at the same level. The answers
must relate to the game and have no basis in reality.
To you I must seem like a newcomer to the game who does not
understand the rules of the game.

You are in the matrix.

>>>>> When the Christian says we are the creaturely image of
>>>>> God, it is not said with reference to our physical bodies.
>>>>
>>>> How convenient.
>>>>
>>> Convenient? Actually it's very pertinent because it is integral to
>>> Christian theism, not some special add-on invented to defend against
>>> atheism. You concentrate on the physical similarities whilst ignoring
>>> the non-physical differences which actually do set us apart from animals.
>>
>> Rather convenient that our differences are in areas that can't be
>> seen or detected.
>>
>Well it might be convenient for you to ignore our conceptual capacities
>in the interests of trying to make Christianity look silly.
>
>And you say that our conceptual capacities are undetectable, but are
>they? How about our rational faculties and moral awareness? How about
>our capacity to wonder about how and why we are here? Even our capacity
>create theories such as Darwinism? Are these things undetectable? All
>we have to do is observe ourselves and talk to one another. Instead of
>being undetectable, they are obvious.

I'm talking about undetectable things like the soul which appears to
have no function.

>>>>> So what about the incredible non-physical differences between humans
>>>>> and animals?
>>>>
>>>> Humans are animals.
>>>> The differences between us and OTHER animals is a matter of degree
>>>> rather than being absolute. We generally have a higher intelligence
>>>> and better abilities to manipulate objects.
>>>
>>> This is a massive understatement about the capabilities of humans.
>>
>> In what way?
>>
>In that you reduce art, music, language, writing, rationality, our moral
>awareness, our awareness of the laws of logic and our desire to know our
>origins down to the level of just being slightly better abilities than
>animals. These things, which identify us as human, are not merely
>quantitative differences but qualitative.

Big differences but still only a matter of degree.
Perhaps in the matrix humans look and act completely different but
here in the real world many of our problems are caused by the fact
that we have evolved a big brain but not the ability to use it
properly. If there was a magical creator we would expect us to be
completely different.

>>>> We have the same basic needs and wants and the very same method
>>>> of reproduction.
>>>
>>> You have returned to physical similarities, which I and many other
>>> Christians do not dispute but which is not what I asked.
>>
>> It is the physical aspect of the brain that determines our thoughts
>> and actions.
>
>If so, then we are walled up in determinism and there is no hope of
>either one of us having a change of mind. For what we think and do is
>merely the end process our cause and effect biological bodies. Clearly
>this is nonsense because the very basis of discussion presupposes that
>we have the freedom to think through issues by weighing up the evidence
>and coming to a conclusion. So your presence on this n.g contradicts
>your own comment. But then such is the double-think of atheism.

We are the victim of our brain so it makes no sense for a creator
to judge us.

>> Apes are smarter than 2 year old children.
>
>That is not saying much because a 3 year old child is smarter than an
>adult Ape. So it seems that our very similar DNA does not account for
>the great difference between ourselves and Apes. Genetic makeup is only
>part of the story and something else is at work, which the naturalistic
>world-view cannot philosophically accept.
>
>
>
>> Adults with Down's Syndrome behave like children because their
>> brain is not fully developed.
>>
>
>So? Yet we recognise that they are persons. But if it is as you say
>then why don't we put them down like we do with animals? Instead we
>make the deep assumption that they are still persons and we have a moral
>obligation to treat them as humans whether we do or not.

We are selfish and don't want ourselves to be put down.

>Take away God
>and this world would be a very different and infinitely darker place
>where the human animal is put down the moment he/she is no longer useful
>to society or is defective in some way.

That is your depression speaking.
Do you really think a good God would allow you to be depressed?

>We had a taste of the horrors
>of unfettered atheism during the first half of the 20th century which
>out-did the atrocities performed in the name of Christianity throughout
>all it's 2000 year history.

Who are you to declare something a horror or atrocity?
Obviously God does not agree or he would not have allowed them
to happen.
Remember God attempted to use genocide to correct his errors
and even then he failed! So we know God approves of genocide
and it was God's choice to create a world where life feeds off
life and only the strongest survive.
A quick read of the bible shows that God not only approves of
suffering but he even creates situations to make sure all animals
do suffer.

>>>> Some humans and non-humans have homosexual tendencies.
>>>> We suffer from the same ailments.
>>>>
>>> Again you appeal to the physical rather than the non-physical capacities
>>> of humans.
>>
>> Our superior thinking abilities are due to a physical aspect as is
>> our superior ability to manipulate things.
>>
>
>The problem with your argument is that this is all we are and thus we
>become merely biochemical machines without any freedom.

That's what your depression tells you, but many people have found
a purpose in life.

>Clearly this is
>at odds with what we know ourselves to be. The Christian view is much
>better; yes we have our biological bodies, and damage to it can have
>profound effects, but we also have a non-physical mind which expresses
>itself through the mechanism of the body but is not a product of it. And
>we have an explanation for the existence of mind because the cause of
>the Universe is infinite mind. As the originator of the universe is an
>infinite mind (God) it is to expected that he might want create
>creatures with minds too.

You think God gave you depression because he is depressed?

>>> Seems to me you haven't given any thought to what really
>>> makes humans different form animals.
>>
>> There is no difference. Humans are animals.
>> Economy of design! LOL!
>>
>So why is it wrong to eat a sibling or rape a female when all these
>things and more routinely occur in nature? Why do we know these things
>are objectively wrong if done by humans and not merely social taboos? If
>we are just relatively evolved animals you owe the Christian an
>explanation of where this qualitative difference comes from.

You say non-human animals are amoral because they don't know any
better, but if God is a moral being then God making animals that way
is an immoral act.

>For months
>now you have blanked me and even claimed that I have given no arguments
>to counter the atheists logical argument from the existence of evil.

You have not been able to come up with a counter to the problem

of evil.

>Seems to me atheism is like the Emperor who thinks he's wearing the
>finest clothes but is actually naked.
>
>
>
>>>>> You say nothing about this, when it is this which really needs
>>>>> an explanation from the atheist. And contrary to what you assert, I
>>>>> think it is more to be expected that humans have bodies made of the same
>>>>> stuff as other animals and this is backed up by the bible when it says
>>>>> we are made from the dust of the earth, which is a figurative reference
>>>>> to humans being biologically of this world. If we were quite separate
>>>> >from other forms of life on earth, we would be aliens.
>>>>
>>>> The way our bodies and minds are speaks of evolution rather than
>>>> custom design by an intelligent creator.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think humans possessing rational minds speaks of the existence of God,
>>> not his non-existence.
>>
>> What does God possessing a rational mind speak of?
>>
>
>That the universe is a rational place where we can predict the existence
>of something which has not yet been discovered. The Higgs Boson is one
>recent example. The regularity of the universe is staggering when you
>think about it but difficult to explain on atheism. Yet it is precisely
>what we would expect on biblical theism.

Then I am right about Christianity being like a computer game to you,
because outside the matrix those things don't apply.

>>>>> You really don't know what you are talking about Goldfish. If we have
>>>>> no free will, then there is no point in any atheist trying to show
>>>>> theists the 'error of their thinking' as we think only what we are
>>>>> biologically determined to think. As such we are incapable of a change
>>>>> of mind because our thoughts are merely the cause and effect processes
>>>>> of our biochemical makeup. However you clearly know this is not true
>>>>> because you presume a change of mind is possible for Christians, for
>>>>> everyone. So the argument is about how to best explain what we know to
>>>>> be true; that we have freewill.
>>>>
>>>> Did I say we totally lack free will?
>>>> We certainly don't have the sort of free will you promote.
>>>>
>>> Then you will have to explain how we can only have partial or apparent
>>> free will. The only Godless explanation I've heard is a kind of soft
>>> determinism, where a magic wand is waved to declare that our freedom is
>>> an emergent property of our complex brains. All this does is put the
>>> problem one step back.
>>
>> Our choices are either influenced or random.
>>
>You need to explain this more based on your atheist belief that we are
>merely biological machines. It will be interesting to see how you
>attempt to escape biological determinism.

If not influenced or random then what?
Do you blame the children of the Taliban for behaving the same
way as their parents?

>>>>> And how silly of you to assert that if God gave us free will that he
>>>>> would be responsible for how we use that free will.
>>>>
>>>> Do you believe God chose the way our brain works?
>>>>
>>> We have free-will, that much is common knowledge. And we tacitly
>>> acknowledge this when we punish people for crimes because it assumes
>>> that they have the capacity and knowledge to have known the right and
>>> acted differently.
>>
>> Sometimes a person is found not guilty due to diminished
>> responsibility.
>
>So how does this support your belief that we are merely relatively
>evolved animals? For animals are not guilty of any crime as they are not
>moral beings.

You say animals are not responsible.

>> There are places where child molesters are held after
>> they have completed their prison term because it is believed they will
>> certainly offend again.
>
>Again, how does this support your belief that we are merely relatively
>evolved animals when administering justice speaks of morally aware
>beings who are able to do otherwise than what they actually do? All
>this example would reveal is that the authorities judged that the
>paedophiles have not chosen to change, not that they lack the ability to
>change. If they were not moral beings with the intrinsic ability to
>choose what they do, we would castrate them or even have them put down.

The authorities have determined that some are unable to change.

>> Why is it that most men would not molest a
>> child if you paid them but some can't help themselves? Why is it
>> that most men are sexually attracted to women and find the thought
>> of sex with a man repulsive but some men are sexually attracted
>> to men and find the thought of sex with a women repulsive?
>> Do you think they choose their sexuality?
>
>I think there is a growing phenomena of persons desiring to experiment
>with what they might not otherwise countenance because of societal
>encouragement via the internet, media and government legislation, but on
>the whole I don't think the majority do. However that is not the issue.
> The issue is whether any of those you mention can choose not to engage
>in sexual activity. I think the answer to that we do possess the
>ability to refrain; to control our desires, even if it is not easy.
>Animals do not possess this capacity for self-control as they lack
>self-awareness.

Define self-awareness.

>If we are not moral beings then it makes no sense to
>judge paedophiles as doing something immoral as it is natural to them
>and they cannot do otherwise. The most that could be said is that
>paedophiles are going against the present social convention but not that
>paedophilia is really wrong. And you need to explain to me why it is
>wrong for a human male to have forced copulation with a child/female but
>not for animals.

You believe we are not moral beings without God so everything we
do is permitted by God. If you are right we should not be held to
blame for our actions any more than should other animals.

God should be held responsible for every thought and every action.

>> Why is it necessary to choose not to drive before you get drunk?
>> Why did the railway worker's personality change after a rail
>> spike went through his brain?
>>
>
>The difference is that on your naturalistic assumptions we can only be
>the output of our brains, but that doesn't fit with what we know about
>ourselves. And science is still at a loss as to what consciousness is
>so I don't know how you can assert that our consciousness and
>self-identity is merely a phenomenon of the brain.

We do know that consciousness is a function of the brain.

>Contrary to this,
>Christianity says we have this physical organ called the brain but there
>is a non-physical person who exists as well. As an illustration, the
>brain can be compared to a piano whilst the pianist can be compared to
>the non-physical element which is the person. If the piano gets
>damaged, then the pianist cannot express himself no matter how often he
>hits the affected keys. So citing examples of brain damage as proof
>that we are merely organic machines is somewhat unconvincing.

You are demonstrating one of the limitations of the mammal brain.

>Also, the difference between the biblical theist and the
>naturalist/atheist is that on Godless view the conclusion that we are
>merely machines and therefore all our thoughts and actions are
>determined by our biology is hard to avoid; we may think we have freedom
>of mind but it is all really an illusion. However the biblical theist
>has a source of mind in God, and thus we have a basis for real minds
>that can make real choices even though the mind is dependent upon the
>hardware of the brain to express intentions in the physical world.

Only in the matrix.
In the real world there is no God.

>>> I think human free-will is easily accounted for if God exists but
>>> extremely difficult to account for on atheism.
>>
>> How do you define free will?
>>
>To be able to make choices between alternatives and have intentionality.
> How do you account for free will in a Godless world that is merely
>lifeless matter and energy?

How do you account for God at all? Do you think you can reason God
into existence?

>>>>> That is the same as saying God makes us freely do the right
>>>>> thing, which is a logical contradiction. If God has created we humans
>>>>> with free will, then we are responsible to God for our actions and you
>>>>> are in deep s**t unless you turn to God through Jesus Christ.
>>>>
>>>> What happens if I use my God given free will to reject
>>>> God through Jesus Christ? What happens to those people who
>>>> are too intelligent to be taken in by the Christian bullshit?
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I said before you are responsible for your actions to God and your
>>> comment amply demonstrates your freedom to reject him.
>>
>> I don't have the freedom to choose God.
>>
>You comment is a falsehood. If you don't have the freedom to choose God
>then I don't have the freedom to become an atheist and there is no point
>to any discussion at all. Yet here you are on this n.g.

I can't choose to believe in something I know is not true.

>>> However you will reap the consequences if you do not repent and freely
>>> accept salvation before your death.
>>
>> You have a very strange idea of freedom.
>>
>>> And what is more, you will have no excuses when you
>>> appear before God and he will be proven to be just in his sentence upon
>>> you.
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>So you disagree, so what?

So you are wrong because your morality is totally screwed up.

>>> For you have the moral law within you and God has supplied enough
>>> evidence in the created order for you to know his existence, at least as
>>> creator.
>>
>> Does God have any responsibility for making himself and his laws
>> known?
>
>He has done so and many have responded to the evidence he has provided
>by confessing their sins and trusting on Christ for their salvation. You
>have inoculated yourself the the evidence that is all around you by
>denying that there can be anything beyond this physical universe
>(naturalism).

Only many? Why not all?

>> I use my superior abilities to improve the lives of my animals
>> and they respond by trusting me and by being gentle.
>> If God was to use the same techniques with us he would find we
>> respond much better. But perhaps God is economising by leaving
>> us to our own devices. LOL!
>>
>Well for a start you are not the creator of your pets and as such did
>not choose whether or not they should be beings with free will. God
>chose to create humans with free will in the hope that many would freely
>choose salvation and enter into eternal life with him. So basically I'm
>saying your comparison is not like-for-like because you and your animals
>are on the same level in the sense that you are a created creature too.

If God would treat us with respect and make himself known he would
get a far better response out of us. But I don't blame God for not
existing.

>>> Bertrand Russell's boast about what he would say to God after
>>> his death is hollow for there is enough evidence if you have eyes to
>>> see. What blinds atheists is their commitment to naturalism.
>>
>> What if I was to explain to God that he is responsible for everything
>> and what if I was to tell God how he should behave? Would God's
>> pride get in the way of him being good to us?
>>
>>> And you misunderstand the whole issue if you think it is a matter of the
>>> intelligent versus the unintelligent.
>>
>> Sometimes the more intelligent a person the less they can relate
>> to the real world. You use your intelligence the wrong way.
>>
>That is very biased. What you mean is that intelligent people will
>always see that atheism is true but lots of intelligent people see that
>Christianity is true and atheism false. Basically you are trying to
>write me off because I don't conform to your idea of how Christians
>should be.

While Christianity is pure idiocy it takes intelligence to find ways
to continue to believe in the unbelievable.
In that sense you are like an evil genius.

>>>> It doesn't surprise me that you would try to use free will as an
>>>> out for God's unacceptable behaviour since you tried to
>>>> cast doubt on the solid proof of no good and powerful God.
>>>>
>>> What you don't like is that you cannot find a counter argument to it on
>>> the atheistic websites you consult, so you retreat into denial.
>>
>> You were unable to come up with a way for God to be good
>> without being good, and your freewill argument is just putting
>> the blame on God's victims.
>>
>As always, you ascribe to Christianity a god of your own invention and
>then fault Christianity for believing in this god. You shouldn't be
>surprised that Christians do not take you as a serious critic.

You know from the state of the world God is not good but you are
programmed to believe God is good.

>>>>> I've yet to hear an explanation of how free-will can appear in a
>>>>> universe that is merely matter and energy in motion.
>>>>
>>>> I've yet to hear an explanation of how a magical God can
>>>> appear out of nothing with power and knowledge from
>>>> nowhere.
>>>>
>>>> It is far more likely that matter and energy popped out of
>>>> nothing or always existed than your magical God.
>>>>
>>> That is sad, what you are saying is that you would rather embrace total
>>> irrationality that consider the evidence that points to the universe
>>> being created by an unembodied infinite and personal mind (i.e God).
>>
>> What is sad is that you have no argument.
>> If simple life coming from nothing is unlikely then a complex magical
>> being is impossible.
>>
>By very nature God cannot not exist. It is not irrational to conclude
>such a being exists because mind and personality cannot come from
>lifeless atoms.

Does God have mind and personality?

>>>>> How personality and freewill can come from inanimate matter and energy
>>>>> is a big problem for the naturalist/atheist. No doubt you are totally
>>>>> oblivious to this in your atheist arrogance.
>>>>
>>>> How personality and freewill can come from nothing is a big problem
>>>> for the creationist. No doubt you are totally oblivious to this in
>>>> your creationist arrogance.
>>>>
>>> I don't know how you managed to delude yourself into getting this so
>>> back to front. For if God exists as a personal being, we have a ready
>>> explanation for the existence of personality and freewill as it is
>>> sourced in the creator.
>>
>> Did the creator source it's own personality and freewill?
>>
>He is a necessary being, which means he was not caused to be by
>something or someone else. You clearly do not want to accept that if God
>is God, he is necessarily self-existent by definition in all possible
>worlds.

The programmer of the matrix created God?
Meanwhile, back in reality, we neither have nor require God.
Fact is we don't know how it all began.
For all we know matter and energy have always existed.
That makes more sense than a magical being from nowhere
with power and knowledge from nothing.

>>> It is the atheist who is stuck with conjuring
>>> personality and free-will out of inert lifeless matter as John Locke
>>> explained:
>>>
>>> "It is as impossible to conceive that ever pure incognitative matter
>>> should produce a thinking intelligent being, as that nothing should of
>>> itself produce matter."
>>> John Locke (Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding IV,x,10
>>>
>>> Notice that he compares the production of intelligent beings out of
>>> inert matter as equally impossible as something coming out of nothing.
>>
>> The more you argue against something from nothing the more you
>> argue against the existence of your God.
>> Where did God get its thinking abilities?
>>
>How about addressing my comment instead of ignoring it and throwing
>something else back? Seems to me, you not only have no explanation for
>the universe coming out of nothing but intelligent beings coming from
>inanimate matter too. Are you going to play the 'honesty' card again
>and from your bankrupt position demand that I be honest too in an
>dishonest attempt to blunt the force of atheism's inability to provide a
>coherent explanation for either of these two?

If you were honest you would admit that have no idea how everything
began, but due to your brain being an imperfect physical organ you
are unable to see how wrong you are.

That's easy! Dead people don't come back to life. Next!
The bible is made up nonsense.

The whole bible is figurative. God, Jesus, and the rest of the
supernatural crew are figurative.

>>>>> The point of difference is not evolution as such but whether evolution
>>>>> is guided or unguided. If it is unguided then humans are merely the
>>>>> product of a blind process which never had humans in mind and it is a
>>>>> mystery where our rationality, free-will comes from.
>>>>
>>>> Its true that nobody knows how life originated, but we do know how
>>>> life progressed from that early start, and no God has been detected
>>>> nor is one needed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You admit nobody knows how life originated but you do know that it does
>>> not involve God?
>>
>> We know when and why God was created.
>>
>How can you possibly know that?

Its part of history.

>Even Dawkins advert on the side of
>London buses a few years ago had to include the words; 'There probably
>isn't a God, so . . . '.

The bus company probably forced him to put it that way.

>The truth of the matter is that the existence
>of evil in the world does not disprove the existence of God, and
>actually demonstrates his existence.

So without God we would be free of evil thus happy and healthy
at all times?

>>> So now your naturalistic beliefs are coming to the
>>> surface. The reason you cannot find evidence for God is that your
>>> philosophical beliefs prevent you from seeing the evidence and following
>>> it to its conclusions. For you there can never be any evidence for the
>>> existence of God, so if you are presented with it you automatically
>>> dismiss it because it just cannot be valid.
>>
>> If there was a God I would want to know, but the God claims are
>> radical and require radical evidence which you don't have.
>> OTOH you can never accept that you could be wrong so no amount
>> of logic, reasoning, or evidence will convince you. It appears that
>> your free will is malfunctioning.
>>
>Why is it radical, and why does it need radical evidence?

An impossible being for which there is no evidence.

>All I have to
>do is point to the evidence that does exist and use logical arguments.

Just like all you have to do is point to the evidence for a good God
that is not good. You can't do either.

>If you choose to artificially filter these out because of your
>philosophically truncated beliefs, then the problem is clearly on your
>side.

Try me.

>> Please don't hold back for the sake of my feelings. If you have
>> something that will make a mockery of my understandings
>> go ahead and present it.
>
>Your naturalistic beliefs are your problem as it stops you going where
>the evidence leads, once all the natural explanations and evidences have
>been exhausted.

Do you think there is a problem with the way God designed my brain?

>> So far you have made assertions which you can't back up and
>> you try to cover up your shortcomings with bluster and denigration.
>>
>You're in denial mode again. You fool only yourself.

More bluster and denigration from you!

>> The reason you can't come up with evidence for God is that there
>> is none due to there being no God.
>>
>There is good evidence but you are philosophically inoculated against
>it. You cannot even admit there can be evidence even though it is
>staring you in face, because according to naturalism, there can be no
>supernatural explanations. Therefore any evidence for a supernatural
>explanation just cannot be evidence by very definition.

Don't blame me if you choose to keep your evidence hidden.

>> Some atheists feel they should treat believers with respect but I
>> say we should call theists on their foolishness and should mock
>> religion at every opportunity.
>>
>Argumentum ad Derision does nothing to disprove the claims of
>Christianity and makes those who resort to it look like arrogant fools
>with no good arguments.

You are no different to the pedophile who can't see what he is
doing is wrong.

There is very rare mental condition where a person goes blind
but can't believe they are blind. They have trouble walking
around but no amount of reason will convince them they are
blind.

You are like that.

>Steve Wilson

--
If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!

(In the biblical sense)

[Steve Wilson]

On 31/01/2014 10:07, Steve Wilson wrote:
> On 20/01/2014 06:58, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:02:19 +0000, Steve Wilson
>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/01/2014 04:18, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:00:41 +0000, Steve Wilson
>>>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 17/01/2014 23:50, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:03:32 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>

>>>>>>> Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:07:27 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>

>>>>>>>>> Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:28:31 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>

Barry, you haven't given any response to my post. Given how much you
said you were looking forward to it, I naturally thought you would.
Perhaps you have finally realised that Christianity is far more coherent
than your atheist mentors have brainwashed you into believing?

Steve Wilson

[Barry OGrady]

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 21:35:55 +0000, Steve Wilson

<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 31/01/2014 10:07, Steve Wilson wrote:
>> On 20/01/2014 06:58, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:02:19 +0000, Steve Wilson
>>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 19/01/2014 04:18, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:00:41 +0000, Steve Wilson
>>>>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/01/2014 23:50, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:03:32 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
>>>>>>>> Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:07:27 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
>>>>>>>>>> Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:28:31 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>
>Barry, you haven't given any response to my post. Given how much you
>said you were looking forward to it, I naturally thought you would.
>Perhaps you have finally realised that Christianity is far more coherent
>than your atheist mentors have brainwashed you into believing?

Perhaps it didn't make it onto my news server.
Would you mind reposting it?
Thanks.

>Steve Wilson
>

--
If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!

(In the biblical sense)

[Steve Wilson]

On 31/01/2014 10:07, Steve Wilson wrote:

regards biological similarity. Biological similarity can easily be

explained by a designer. In fact isn't Richard Dawkins whole position
one of explaining away the apparent design we observe in nature?


>>>>> When the Christian says we are the creaturely image of
>>>>> God, it is not said with reference to our physical bodies.
>>>>
>>>> How convenient.
>>>>
>>> Convenient? Actually it's very pertinent because it is integral to
>>> Christian theism, not some special add-on invented to defend against
>>> atheism. You concentrate on the physical similarities whilst ignoring
>>> the non-physical differences which actually do set us apart from
>>> animals.
>>
>> Rather convenient that our differences are in areas that can't be
>> seen or detected.
>>

Well it might be convenient for you to ignore our conceptual capacities
in the interests of trying to make Christianity look silly.

And you say that our conceptual capacities are undetectable, but are
they? How about our rational faculties and moral awareness? How about

our capacity to wonder about how and why we are here? How about our
capacity to create theories such as Darwinism? Are these things

undetectable? All we have to do is observe ourselves and talk to one

another. Instead of being undetectable, our conceptual capacities are

obvious.



>>>>> So what about the incredible non-physical differences between humans
>>>>> and animals?
>>>>
>>>> Humans are animals.
>>>> The differences between us and OTHER animals is a matter of degree
>>>> rather than being absolute. We generally have a higher intelligence
>>>> and better abilities to manipulate objects.
>>>
>>> This is a massive understatement about the capabilities of humans.
>>
>> In what way?
>>

In that you reduce art, music, language, writing, rationality, our moral
awareness, our awareness of the laws of logic and our desire to know our
origins down to the level of just being slightly better abilities than
animals. These things, which identify us as human, are not merely
quantitative differences but qualitative.



>>>> We have the same basic needs and wants and the very same method
>>>> of reproduction.
>>>
>>> You have returned to physical similarities, which I and many other
>>> Christians do not dispute but which is not what I asked.
>>
>> It is the physical aspect of the brain that determines our thoughts
>> and actions.
>

If so, then we are walled up in determinism and there is no hope of
either one of us having a change of mind. For what we think and do is
merely the end process our cause and effect biological bodies. Clearly

this is nonsense because the very basis of our discussion presupposes

that we have the freedom to think through issues by weighing up the

evidence and coming to a conclusion. So your very presence on this n.g
contradicts your assertion. But then such is the double-think of atheism.

>> Apes are smarter than 2 year old children.

That is not saying much because then a 3 year old child would be smarter
than an adult Ape. So given that our DNA is very similar, this does not

account for the great difference between ourselves and Apes. Genetic

make-up is only part of the story and something else is at work, which

the naturalistic world-view cannot philosophically accept.


>
>> Adults with Down's Syndrome behave like children because their
>> brain is not fully developed.
>>

So? Yet we recognise that they are persons. But if it is as you say,

then why don't we put them down like we do with animals? Instead we
make the deep assumption that they are still persons and we have a moral

obligation to treat them as humans. Take away God and this world would

be a very different and infinitely darker place where the human animal
is put down the moment he/she is no longer useful to society or is
defective in some way. We had a taste of the horrors of unfettered
atheism during the first half of the 20th century which out-did the
atrocities performed in the name of Christianity throughout all it's
2000 year history.



>>>> Some humans and non-humans have homosexual tendencies.
>>>> We suffer from the same ailments.
>>>>
>>> Again you appeal to the physical rather than the non-physical capacities
>>> of humans.
>>
>> Our superior thinking abilities are due to a physical aspect as is
>> our superior ability to manipulate things.
>>

The problem with your argument is that this is all we are and thus we
become merely biochemical machines without any freedom. Clearly this is
at odds with what we know ourselves to be. The Christian view is much

better; yes we have biological bodies, and damage to it can have

profound effects, but we also have a non-physical mind which expresses
itself through the mechanism of the body but is not a product of it. And
we have an explanation for the existence of mind because the cause of
the Universe is infinite mind. As the originator of the universe is an
infinite mind (God) it is to expected that he might want create
creatures with minds too.

>>> Seems to me you haven't given any thought to what really

>>> makes humans different from animals.

>>
>> There is no difference. Humans are animals.
>> Economy of design! LOL!
>>

So why is it wrong to eat a sibling or rape a female when all these
things and more routinely occur in nature? Why do we know these things
are objectively wrong if done by humans and not merely social taboos? If

we are merely relatively evolved animals you owe the Christian an
explanation as to where this qualitative difference comes from. For

merely machines, and therefore all our thoughts and actions are
determined by our biology, is hard to avoid; we may think we have
freedomof mind but it is all really an illusion. However the biblical

theist has a source of mind in God, and thus we have a basis for real
minds that can make real choices even though the mind is dependent upon
the hardware of the brain to express intentions in the physical world.


>>> I think human free-will is easily accounted for if God exists but
>>> extremely difficult to account for on atheism.
>>
>> How do you define free will?
>>

To be able to make choices between alternatives and have intentionality.
How do you account for free will in a Godless world that is merely
lifeless matter and energy?


>>>>> That is the same as saying God makes us freely do the right
>>>>> thing, which is a logical contradiction. If God has created we humans
>>>>> with free will, then we are responsible to God for our actions and you
>>>>> are in deep s**t unless you turn to God through Jesus Christ.
>>>>
>>>> What happens if I use my God given free will to reject
>>>> God through Jesus Christ? What happens to those people who
>>>> are too intelligent to be taken in by the Christian bullshit?
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I said before you are responsible for your actions to God and your
>>> comment amply demonstrates your freedom to reject him.
>>
>> I don't have the freedom to choose God.
>>

Your comment is a falsehood. If you don't have the freedom to choose

always see that atheism is true. However lots of intelligent people see

that Christianity is true and atheism false. Basically you are trying

to write me off because I don't conform to the atheist dogma of how

How about addressing my comment directly instead of ignoring it and

throwing something else back? Seems to me, you not only have no
explanation for the universe coming out of nothing but intelligent

beings coming from inanimate matter too. Are you going to play the fake
'honesty' card again, and from your bankrupt position demand that I be
'honest' too in order to blunt the force of atheism's inability to
provide an explanation?

>>>>>> I know it is in your interest to promote God by denying evolution
>>>>>> but the fact is that everything points to evolution having happened
>>>>>> over millions of years and many Christians accept evolution without
>>>>>> losing faith in God.
>>>>>>
>>>>> As you have put it, evolution is no argument against a creating God
>>>>> because he could have guided it to produce a rational, self-conscious
>>>>> being.
>>>>
>>>> I did not put it that way.
>>>>
>>> I think your argument is muddled.
>>
>> I think you wish my argument was muddled because you have no comeback.
>>
>>> You routinely use evolution to
>>> disprove the existence of God by attacking the literal interpretation of
>>> genesis, but at the same time highlight that some Christians accept that
>>> some form of evolution has occurred. It seems you do not realise the the
>>> real issue is whether evolution is unguided or guided. Seems to me you
>>> do not disprove the existence of God even if you manage to disprove the
>>> literal interpretation of Genesis.
>>
>> If Genesis is wrong what else is wrong in the bible?
>> How do you decide which parts of the bible are true?
>>

If the literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong all is means is the
literal interpretation is wrong, not that Genesis is actually wrong. To
me it is clear that Genesis is not a scientific document, but a
theological one. It is telling us true truths about God and man and

gives a sketchy outline of creation which is consistent with the big

bang. You often attack the literal interpretation as if by doing so you

destroy Christianity, but if so you are mistaken. To undermine

truths in Genesis but it is couched in figurative language utilising
and adapting the Babylonian creation story of the time.

[Barry OGrady]

I did reply on 1/2/14 to your last post on 31/1/14

Seems YOU are the one that missed it.

Here is my reply.

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:07:08 +0000, Steve Wilson

<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 20/01/2014 06:58, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:02:19 +0000, Steve Wilson
>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19/01/2014 04:18, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:00:41 +0000, Steve Wilson
>>>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 17/01/2014 23:50, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:03:32 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 12:07:27 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 20:28:31 -0500, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>>

>>>>> Do yo think Christians are unaware of the biological similarity with
>>>>> other animals, especially mammals, that we need someone like you to
>>>>> point it out?
>>>>
>>>> It does seem that way.
>>>>
>>> No it doesn't, it just suits you to presume we Christians blindly deny
>>> the biological similarities so you can press your case for Darwinism.
>>> Even the most fundamentalist of Christians could explain this similarity
>>> as being due to economy of design.
>>
>> As if an almighty and all-knowing creator would need to economise.
>> Why didn't God economise with insects and snakes?
>> You are grasping at straws.
>>
>I'm merely showing you that you are terribly naive if you think that
>Christians are like deer caught in the glare of a car's headlights
>regards biological similarity. Biologicial similarity can easily be
>explained by a designer. In fact isn't Richard Dawkins whole position
>one of explaining away the apparent design we observe in nature?

I am getting the distinct feeling that for you Christianity is like a
computer game. You have to answer questions before you can
move to the next level or even stay at the same level. The answers
must relate to the game and have no basis in reality.
To you I must seem like a newcomer to the game who does not
understand the rules of the game.

You are in the matrix.

>>>>> When the Christian says we are the creaturely image of
>>>>> God, it is not said with reference to our physical bodies.
>>>>
>>>> How convenient.
>>>>
>>> Convenient? Actually it's very pertinent because it is integral to
>>> Christian theism, not some special add-on invented to defend against
>>> atheism. You concentrate on the physical similarities whilst ignoring
>>> the non-physical differences which actually do set us apart from animals.
>>
>> Rather convenient that our differences are in areas that can't be
>> seen or detected.
>>
>Well it might be convenient for you to ignore our conceptual capacities
>in the interests of trying to make Christianity look silly.
>
>And you say that our conceptual capacities are undetectable, but are
>they? How about our rational faculties and moral awareness? How about
>our capacity to wonder about how and why we are here? Even our capacity
>create theories such as Darwinism? Are these things undetectable? All
>we have to do is observe ourselves and talk to one another. Instead of
>being undetectable, they are obvious.

I'm talking about undetectable things like the soul which appears to
have no function.

>>>>> So what about the incredible non-physical differences between humans
>>>>> and animals?
>>>>
>>>> Humans are animals.
>>>> The differences between us and OTHER animals is a matter of degree
>>>> rather than being absolute. We generally have a higher intelligence
>>>> and better abilities to manipulate objects.
>>>
>>> This is a massive understatement about the capabilities of humans.
>>
>> In what way?
>>
>In that you reduce art, music, language, writing, rationality, our moral
>awareness, our awareness of the laws of logic and our desire to know our
>origins down to the level of just being slightly better abilities than
>animals. These things, which identify us as human, are not merely
>quantitative differences but qualitative.

Big differences but still only a matter of degree.
Perhaps in the matrix humans look and act completely different but
here in the real world many of our problems are caused by the fact
that we have evolved a big brain but not the ability to use it
properly. If there was a magical creator we would expect us to be
completely different.

>>>> We have the same basic needs and wants and the very same method
>>>> of reproduction.
>>>
>>> You have returned to physical similarities, which I and many other
>>> Christians do not dispute but which is not what I asked.
>>
>> It is the physical aspect of the brain that determines our thoughts
>> and actions.
>
>If so, then we are walled up in determinism and there is no hope of
>either one of us having a change of mind. For what we think and do is
>merely the end process our cause and effect biological bodies. Clearly
>this is nonsense because the very basis of discussion presupposes that
>we have the freedom to think through issues by weighing up the evidence
>and coming to a conclusion. So your presence on this n.g contradicts
>your own comment. But then such is the double-think of atheism.

We are the victim of our brain so it makes no sense for a creator
to judge us.

>> Apes are smarter than 2 year old children.
>
>That is not saying much because a 3 year old child is smarter than an
>adult Ape. So it seems that our very similar DNA does not account for
>the great difference between ourselves and Apes. Genetic makeup is only
>part of the story and something else is at work, which the naturalistic
>world-view cannot philosophically accept.
>
>
>
>> Adults with Down's Syndrome behave like children because their
>> brain is not fully developed.
>>
>
>So? Yet we recognise that they are persons. But if it is as you say
>then why don't we put them down like we do with animals? Instead we
>make the deep assumption that they are still persons and we have a moral
>obligation to treat them as humans whether we do or not.

We are selfish and don't want ourselves to be put down.

>Take away God
>and this world would be a very different and infinitely darker place
>where the human animal is put down the moment he/she is no longer useful
>to society or is defective in some way.

That is your depression speaking.
Do you really think a good God would allow you to be depressed?

>We had a taste of the horrors
>of unfettered atheism during the first half of the 20th century which
>out-did the atrocities performed in the name of Christianity throughout
>all it's 2000 year history.

Who are you to declare something a horror or atrocity?
Obviously God does not agree or he would not have allowed them
to happen.
Remember God attempted to use genocide to correct his errors
and even then he failed! So we know God approves of genocide
and it was God's choice to create a world where life feeds off
life and only the strongest survive.
A quick read of the bible shows that God not only approves of
suffering but he even creates situations to make sure all animals
do suffer.

>>>> Some humans and non-humans have homosexual tendencies.
>>>> We suffer from the same ailments.
>>>>
>>> Again you appeal to the physical rather than the non-physical capacities
>>> of humans.
>>
>> Our superior thinking abilities are due to a physical aspect as is
>> our superior ability to manipulate things.
>>
>
>The problem with your argument is that this is all we are and thus we
>become merely biochemical machines without any freedom.

That's what your depression tells you, but many people have found
a purpose in life.

>Clearly this is
>at odds with what we know ourselves to be. The Christian view is much
>better; yes we have our biological bodies, and damage to it can have
>profound effects, but we also have a non-physical mind which expresses
>itself through the mechanism of the body but is not a product of it. And
>we have an explanation for the existence of mind because the cause of
>the Universe is infinite mind. As the originator of the universe is an
>infinite mind (God) it is to expected that he might want create
>creatures with minds too.

You think God gave you depression because he is depressed?

>>> Seems to me you haven't given any thought to what really
>>> makes humans different form animals.
>>
>> There is no difference. Humans are animals.
>> Economy of design! LOL!
>>
>So why is it wrong to eat a sibling or rape a female when all these
>things and more routinely occur in nature? Why do we know these things
>are objectively wrong if done by humans and not merely social taboos? If
>we are just relatively evolved animals you owe the Christian an
>explanation of where this qualitative difference comes from.

You say non-human animals are amoral because they don't know any
better, but if God is a moral being then God making animals that way
is an immoral act.

>For months
>now you have blanked me and even claimed that I have given no arguments
>to counter the atheists logical argument from the existence of evil.

You have not been able to come up with a counter to the problem

of evil.

>Seems to me atheism is like the Emperor who thinks he's wearing the
>finest clothes but is actually naked.
>
>
>
>>>>> You say nothing about this, when it is this which really needs
>>>>> an explanation from the atheist. And contrary to what you assert, I
>>>>> think it is more to be expected that humans have bodies made of the same
>>>>> stuff as other animals and this is backed up by the bible when it says
>>>>> we are made from the dust of the earth, which is a figurative reference
>>>>> to humans being biologically of this world. If we were quite separate
>>>> >from other forms of life on earth, we would be aliens.
>>>>
>>>> The way our bodies and minds are speaks of evolution rather than
>>>> custom design by an intelligent creator.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think humans possessing rational minds speaks of the existence of God,
>>> not his non-existence.
>>
>> What does God possessing a rational mind speak of?
>>
>
>That the universe is a rational place where we can predict the existence
>of something which has not yet been discovered. The Higgs Boson is one
>recent example. The regularity of the universe is staggering when you
>think about it but difficult to explain on atheism. Yet it is precisely
>what we would expect on biblical theism.

Then I am right about Christianity being like a computer game to you,
because outside the matrix those things don't apply.

>>>>> You really don't know what you are talking about Goldfish. If we have
>>>>> no free will, then there is no point in any atheist trying to show
>>>>> theists the 'error of their thinking' as we think only what we are
>>>>> biologically determined to think. As such we are incapable of a change
>>>>> of mind because our thoughts are merely the cause and effect processes
>>>>> of our biochemical makeup. However you clearly know this is not true
>>>>> because you presume a change of mind is possible for Christians, for
>>>>> everyone. So the argument is about how to best explain what we know to
>>>>> be true; that we have freewill.
>>>>
>>>> Did I say we totally lack free will?
>>>> We certainly don't have the sort of free will you promote.
>>>>
>>> Then you will have to explain how we can only have partial or apparent
>>> free will. The only Godless explanation I've heard is a kind of soft
>>> determinism, where a magic wand is waved to declare that our freedom is
>>> an emergent property of our complex brains. All this does is put the
>>> problem one step back.
>>
>> Our choices are either influenced or random.
>>
>You need to explain this more based on your atheist belief that we are
>merely biological machines. It will be interesting to see how you
>attempt to escape biological determinism.

If not influenced or random then what?
Do you blame the children of the Taliban for behaving the same
way as their parents?

>>>>> And how silly of you to assert that if God gave us free will that he
>>>>> would be responsible for how we use that free will.
>>>>
>>>> Do you believe God chose the way our brain works?
>>>>
>>> We have free-will, that much is common knowledge. And we tacitly
>>> acknowledge this when we punish people for crimes because it assumes
>>> that they have the capacity and knowledge to have known the right and
>>> acted differently.
>>
>> Sometimes a person is found not guilty due to diminished
>> responsibility.
>
>So how does this support your belief that we are merely relatively
>evolved animals? For animals are not guilty of any crime as they are not
>moral beings.

You say animals are not responsible.

>> There are places where child molesters are held after
>> they have completed their prison term because it is believed they will
>> certainly offend again.
>
>Again, how does this support your belief that we are merely relatively
>evolved animals when administering justice speaks of morally aware
>beings who are able to do otherwise than what they actually do? All
>this example would reveal is that the authorities judged that the
>paedophiles have not chosen to change, not that they lack the ability to
>change. If they were not moral beings with the intrinsic ability to
>choose what they do, we would castrate them or even have them put down.

The authorities have determined that some are unable to change.

>> Why is it that most men would not molest a
>> child if you paid them but some can't help themselves? Why is it
>> that most men are sexually attracted to women and find the thought
>> of sex with a man repulsive but some men are sexually attracted
>> to men and find the thought of sex with a women repulsive?
>> Do you think they choose their sexuality?
>
>I think there is a growing phenomena of persons desiring to experiment
>with what they might not otherwise countenance because of societal
>encouragement via the internet, media and government legislation, but on
>the whole I don't think the majority do. However that is not the issue.
> The issue is whether any of those you mention can choose not to engage
>in sexual activity. I think the answer to that we do possess the
>ability to refrain; to control our desires, even if it is not easy.
>Animals do not possess this capacity for self-control as they lack
>self-awareness.

Define self-awareness.

>If we are not moral beings then it makes no sense to
>judge paedophiles as doing something immoral as it is natural to them
>and they cannot do otherwise. The most that could be said is that
>paedophiles are going against the present social convention but not that
>paedophilia is really wrong. And you need to explain to me why it is
>wrong for a human male to have forced copulation with a child/female but
>not for animals.

You believe we are not moral beings without God so everything we
do is permitted by God. If you are right we should not be held to
blame for our actions any more than should other animals.

God should be held responsible for every thought and every action.

>> Why is it necessary to choose not to drive before you get drunk?
>> Why did the railway worker's personality change after a rail
>> spike went through his brain?
>>
>
>The difference is that on your naturalistic assumptions we can only be
>the output of our brains, but that doesn't fit with what we know about
>ourselves. And science is still at a loss as to what consciousness is
>so I don't know how you can assert that our consciousness and
>self-identity is merely a phenomenon of the brain.

We do know that consciousness is a function of the brain.

>Contrary to this,
>Christianity says we have this physical organ called the brain but there
>is a non-physical person who exists as well. As an illustration, the
>brain can be compared to a piano whilst the pianist can be compared to
>the non-physical element which is the person. If the piano gets
>damaged, then the pianist cannot express himself no matter how often he
>hits the affected keys. So citing examples of brain damage as proof
>that we are merely organic machines is somewhat unconvincing.

You are demonstrating one of the limitations of the mammal brain.

>Also, the difference between the biblical theist and the
>naturalist/atheist is that on Godless view the conclusion that we are
>merely machines and therefore all our thoughts and actions are
>determined by our biology is hard to avoid; we may think we have freedom
>of mind but it is all really an illusion. However the biblical theist
>has a source of mind in God, and thus we have a basis for real minds
>that can make real choices even though the mind is dependent upon the
>hardware of the brain to express intentions in the physical world.

Only in the matrix.
In the real world there is no God.

>>> I think human free-will is easily accounted for if God exists but
>>> extremely difficult to account for on atheism.
>>
>> How do you define free will?
>>
>To be able to make choices between alternatives and have intentionality.
> How do you account for free will in a Godless world that is merely
>lifeless matter and energy?

How do you account for God at all? Do you think you can reason God
into existence?

>>>>> That is the same as saying God makes us freely do the right
>>>>> thing, which is a logical contradiction. If God has created we humans
>>>>> with free will, then we are responsible to God for our actions and you
>>>>> are in deep s**t unless you turn to God through Jesus Christ.
>>>>
>>>> What happens if I use my God given free will to reject
>>>> God through Jesus Christ? What happens to those people who
>>>> are too intelligent to be taken in by the Christian bullshit?
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I said before you are responsible for your actions to God and your
>>> comment amply demonstrates your freedom to reject him.
>>
>> I don't have the freedom to choose God.
>>
>You comment is a falsehood. If you don't have the freedom to choose God
>then I don't have the freedom to become an atheist and there is no point
>to any discussion at all. Yet here you are on this n.g.

I can't choose to believe in something I know is not true.

>>> However you will reap the consequences if you do not repent and freely
>>> accept salvation before your death.
>>
>> You have a very strange idea of freedom.
>>
>>> And what is more, you will have no excuses when you
>>> appear before God and he will be proven to be just in his sentence upon
>>> you.
>>
>> I disagree.
>>
>So you disagree, so what?

So you are wrong because your morality is totally screwed up.

>>> For you have the moral law within you and God has supplied enough
>>> evidence in the created order for you to know his existence, at least as
>>> creator.
>>
>> Does God have any responsibility for making himself and his laws
>> known?
>
>He has done so and many have responded to the evidence he has provided
>by confessing their sins and trusting on Christ for their salvation. You
>have inoculated yourself the the evidence that is all around you by
>denying that there can be anything beyond this physical universe
>(naturalism).

Only many? Why not all?

>> I use my superior abilities to improve the lives of my animals
>> and they respond by trusting me and by being gentle.
>> If God was to use the same techniques with us he would find we
>> respond much better. But perhaps God is economising by leaving
>> us to our own devices. LOL!
>>
>Well for a start you are not the creator of your pets and as such did
>not choose whether or not they should be beings with free will. God
>chose to create humans with free will in the hope that many would freely
>choose salvation and enter into eternal life with him. So basically I'm
>saying your comparison is not like-for-like because you and your animals
>are on the same level in the sense that you are a created creature too.

If God would treat us with respect and make himself known he would
get a far better response out of us. But I don't blame God for not
existing.

>>> Bertrand Russell's boast about what he would say to God after
>>> his death is hollow for there is enough evidence if you have eyes to
>>> see. What blinds atheists is their commitment to naturalism.
>>
>> What if I was to explain to God that he is responsible for everything
>> and what if I was to tell God how he should behave? Would God's
>> pride get in the way of him being good to us?
>>
>>> And you misunderstand the whole issue if you think it is a matter of the
>>> intelligent versus the unintelligent.
>>
>> Sometimes the more intelligent a person the less they can relate
>> to the real world. You use your intelligence the wrong way.
>>
>That is very biased. What you mean is that intelligent people will
>always see that atheism is true but lots of intelligent people see that
>Christianity is true and atheism false. Basically you are trying to
>write me off because I don't conform to your idea of how Christians
>should be.

While Christianity is pure idiocy it takes intelligence to find ways
to continue to believe in the unbelievable.
In that sense you are like an evil genius.

>>>> It doesn't surprise me that you would try to use free will as an
>>>> out for God's unacceptable behaviour since you tried to
>>>> cast doubt on the solid proof of no good and powerful God.
>>>>
>>> What you don't like is that you cannot find a counter argument to it on
>>> the atheistic websites you consult, so you retreat into denial.
>>
>> You were unable to come up with a way for God to be good
>> without being good, and your freewill argument is just putting
>> the blame on God's victims.
>>
>As always, you ascribe to Christianity a god of your own invention and
>then fault Christianity for believing in this god. You shouldn't be
>surprised that Christians do not take you as a serious critic.

You know from the state of the world God is not good but you are
programmed to believe God is good.

>>>>> I've yet to hear an explanation of how free-will can appear in a
>>>>> universe that is merely matter and energy in motion.
>>>>
>>>> I've yet to hear an explanation of how a magical God can
>>>> appear out of nothing with power and knowledge from
>>>> nowhere.
>>>>
>>>> It is far more likely that matter and energy popped out of
>>>> nothing or always existed than your magical God.
>>>>
>>> That is sad, what you are saying is that you would rather embrace total
>>> irrationality that consider the evidence that points to the universe
>>> being created by an unembodied infinite and personal mind (i.e God).
>>
>> What is sad is that you have no argument.
>> If simple life coming from nothing is unlikely then a complex magical
>> being is impossible.
>>
>By very nature God cannot not exist. It is not irrational to conclude
>such a being exists because mind and personality cannot come from
>lifeless atoms.

Does God have mind and personality?

>>>>> How personality and freewill can come from inanimate matter and energy
>>>>> is a big problem for the naturalist/atheist. No doubt you are totally
>>>>> oblivious to this in your atheist arrogance.
>>>>
>>>> How personality and freewill can come from nothing is a big problem
>>>> for the creationist. No doubt you are totally oblivious to this in
>>>> your creationist arrogance.
>>>>
>>> I don't know how you managed to delude yourself into getting this so
>>> back to front. For if God exists as a personal being, we have a ready
>>> explanation for the existence of personality and freewill as it is
>>> sourced in the creator.
>>
>> Did the creator source it's own personality and freewill?
>>
>He is a necessary being, which means he was not caused to be by
>something or someone else. You clearly do not want to accept that if God
>is God, he is necessarily self-existent by definition in all possible
>worlds.

The programmer of the matrix created God?
Meanwhile, back in reality, we neither have nor require God.
Fact is we don't know how it all began.
For all we know matter and energy have always existed.
That makes more sense than a magical being from nowhere

with power and knowledge from nothing.

>>> It is the atheist who is stuck with conjuring
>>> personality and free-will out of inert lifeless matter as John Locke
>>> explained:
>>>
>>> "It is as impossible to conceive that ever pure incognitative matter
>>> should produce a thinking intelligent being, as that nothing should of
>>> itself produce matter."
>>> John Locke (Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding IV,x,10
>>>
>>> Notice that he compares the production of intelligent beings out of
>>> inert matter as equally impossible as something coming out of nothing.
>>
>> The more you argue against something from nothing the more you
>> argue against the existence of your God.
>> Where did God get its thinking abilities?
>>
>How about addressing my comment instead of ignoring it and throwing
>something else back? Seems to me, you not only have no explanation for
>the universe coming out of nothing but intelligent beings coming from
>inanimate matter too. Are you going to play the 'honesty' card again
>and from your bankrupt position demand that I be honest too in an
>dishonest attempt to blunt the force of atheism's inability to provide a
>coherent explanation for either of these two?

If you were honest you would admit that have no idea how everything
began, but due to your brain being an imperfect physical organ you
are unable to see how wrong you are.

That's easy! Dead people don't come back to life. Next!
The bible is made up nonsense.

The whole bible is figurative. God, Jesus, and the rest of the
supernatural crew are figurative.

>>>>> The point of difference is not evolution as such but whether evolution
>>>>> is guided or unguided. If it is unguided then humans are merely the
>>>>> product of a blind process which never had humans in mind and it is a
>>>>> mystery where our rationality, free-will comes from.
>>>>
>>>> Its true that nobody knows how life originated, but we do know how
>>>> life progressed from that early start, and no God has been detected
>>>> nor is one needed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You admit nobody knows how life originated but you do know that it does
>>> not involve God?
>>
>> We know when and why God was created.
>>
>How can you possibly know that?

Its part of history.

>Even Dawkins advert on the side of
>London buses a few years ago had to include the words; 'There probably
>isn't a God, so . . . '.

The bus company probably forced him to put it that way.

>The truth of the matter is that the existence
>of evil in the world does not disprove the existence of God, and
>actually demonstrates his existence.

So without God we would be free of evil thus happy and healthy
at all times?

>>> So now your naturalistic beliefs are coming to the
>>> surface. The reason you cannot find evidence for God is that your
>>> philosophical beliefs prevent you from seeing the evidence and following
>>> it to its conclusions. For you there can never be any evidence for the
>>> existence of God, so if you are presented with it you automatically
>>> dismiss it because it just cannot be valid.
>>
>> If there was a God I would want to know, but the God claims are
>> radical and require radical evidence which you don't have.
>> OTOH you can never accept that you could be wrong so no amount
>> of logic, reasoning, or evidence will convince you. It appears that
>> your free will is malfunctioning.
>>
>Why is it radical, and why does it need radical evidence?

An impossible being for which there is no evidence.

>All I have to
>do is point to the evidence that does exist and use logical arguments.

Just like all you have to do is point to the evidence for a good God
that is not good. You can't do either.

>If you choose to artificially filter these out because of your
>philosophically truncated beliefs, then the problem is clearly on your
>side.

Try me.

>> Please don't hold back for the sake of my feelings. If you have
>> something that will make a mockery of my understandings
>> go ahead and present it.
>
>Your naturalistic beliefs are your problem as it stops you going where
>the evidence leads, once all the natural explanations and evidences have
>been exhausted.

Do you think there is a problem with the way God designed my brain?

>> So far you have made assertions which you can't back up and
>> you try to cover up your shortcomings with bluster and denigration.
>>
>You're in denial mode again. You fool only yourself.

More bluster and denigration from you!

>> The reason you can't come up with evidence for God is that there
>> is none due to there being no God.
>>
>There is good evidence but you are philosophically inoculated against
>it. You cannot even admit there can be evidence even though it is
>staring you in face, because according to naturalism, there can be no
>supernatural explanations. Therefore any evidence for a supernatural
>explanation just cannot be evidence by very definition.

Don't blame me if you choose to keep your evidence hidden.

>> Some atheists feel they should treat believers with respect but I
>> say we should call theists on their foolishness and should mock
>> religion at every opportunity.
>>
>Argumentum ad Derision does nothing to disprove the claims of
>Christianity and makes those who resort to it look like arrogant fools
>with no good arguments.

You are no different to the pedophile who can't see what he is
doing is wrong.

There is very rare mental condition where a person goes blind
but can't believe they are blind. They have trouble walking
around but no amount of reason will convince them they are
blind.

You are like that.

>Steve Wilson

--
If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!

(In the biblical sense)

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

Steve Wilson stated:
Snipped Steve's intriguing extensive Epistle.

>Argumentum ad Derision does nothing to disprove the claims of
>Christianity and makes those who resort to it look like arrogant fools
>with no good arguments.

I could not agree more, Steve.

Evolution and blind-chance scenarios are ultimately "Far too daft to laugh
at"
Just look at any nature or astronomical or earth's weather programs and
immediately it
can be seen there is a brilliant creative and awesome supernatural force
behind
each and every complicated procedure.

Jeff...

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 21:43:31 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic
Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>Steve Wilson stated:
>Snipped Steve's intriguing extensive Epistle.
>>Argumentum ad Derision does nothing to disprove the claims of
>>Christianity and makes those who resort to it look like arrogant fools
>>with no good arguments.
>
>I could not agree more, Steve.
>
>Evolution and blind-chance scenarios are ultimately "Far too daft to laugh
>at"

Tell that to people who think God appeared by blind chance.

>Just look at any nature or astronomical or earth's weather programs and
>immediately it can be seen there is a brilliant creative and awesome
>supernatural force behind each and every complicated procedure.

Oooh! Such biting sarcasm!

>Jeff...

--
If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!

(In the biblical sense)

[Ron Dean]

On Jan 9, 2014 at 8:11:22 AM EST, "August Rode" <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 09/01/2014 3:02 AM, Andrew wrote:
>> "August Rode" wrote in message news:P8lzu.206075$Rp6....@fx15.iad...

>>> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>>>> "Free Lunch" wrote in message news:

>>>>> There's no evidence that your god exists or is as you describe.
>>>>
>>>> There plenty all around you, if you can be bothered to open your eyes.

>>>> The human brain we are informed is the most complicated object in the
>>>> Universe, and science can barely scratch it's surface.
>>>>

>>>> Man cannot create life, or even the smallest grass-seed as the secret
>>>> remains with an Almighty Intelligent Creator.
>>>>

>>>> As for the heavens, that is even more awesome proof of intelligent and
>>>> intrinsic design.
>>>

>>> Nice series of arguments from ignorance.
>>
>> Yet you are *unable* to refute them. So you don't even try.
>
> What's to refute, Andrew? Some of his statements are true and the
> remainder are his personal opinion, unsupported by any facts.
>
>> Which is in itself *evidence* of their veracity, and that you
>> have been *deceived* into accepting a false worldview.
>
How do your know that it's not you whos been deceived? It's
impossible to determine what is deception and what is not if
only one side is studied. What have you learned from ID sources?

>
> When one side unilaterally declares victory before it fires the first
> shot, the other side is permitted to laugh.