AlpineExile
Striker
Since when?Always there.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Since when?Always there.
Why would they be affected by time?
If there was a since when, it wouldn't by definition be alwaysSince when?
They're coherent and logicalCos I'm trying to understand whether your beliefs are coherent and logical or whether they are incoherent, contradictory and illogical.
It's isn't affected by time, we are. There's no complication.If the timeless was not affected by time then why would it act and if it did act it could not be timeless.
People may not believe truth but truth should be reasonable.
That's no explanation Kubi.If there was a since when, it wouldn't by definition be always
I doubt it, somehow.They're coherent and logical
Add all the matter and energy up in the universe and it looks like the sum total is zero, so you're wrong there.The Bing Bang Theory starts with the preexistence of dense of matter. It doesn't start to deal with creation of the universe because when it begins, matter already exists. It would have to start with the point prior to the existence of matter to begin to refute the proposition of a Creator.
You wouldn't be suggesting that cause and effect dictates we can't exist?That's no explanation Kubi.
Try again please, maybe using different words or something.
I doubt it, somehow.
Add all the matter and energy up in the universe and it looks like the sum total is zero, so you're wrong there.
I'm just hanging around waiting for you to explain your beliefs.You wouldn't be suggesting that cause and effect dictates we can't exist?
Always there.
Am I still on ignore after you had a tizzy a few months backHahah. Brilliant.
Why not just say we were always there? Then you wouldn't even need a creator.
Okay then, let's go round in.circles, you explain yours.I'm just hanging around waiting for you to explain your beliefs.
Well done, you've got it in one.Am I still on ignore after you had a tizzy a few months back
Okay then, let's go round in.circles, you explain yours.
You won't cause you don't have any.
I'm don't accept that because it's just a cop out
Repeat for 500 pages.
There you go, now answer the question or don't
I've told you loads of times it would involve revealing all of my religious beliefs on here which I'm not gonna do, why does it matter so much to you?
Back to my original point. You arent a scientist. And you arent carrying out the experiments. You arent testing the findings of those experiments either. So you are putting faith in what you are being told.
Looks after its own interests, like everyone else, so will tell you what it wants to. And you will be none the wiser.
There's no 'faith' involved in science, it is a methodology, and one that works over and over again. I take it you're happy to have 'faith' in the computer you're typing on, or the car you drive, or every time you switch on a light. It is an argument from ignorance that I stated earlier - 'I don't know something, therefore everything is equal in validity'. It is a fallacy.
Morality is both personal and public. If morality was purely personal we'd teach in schools, "make your own mind up about whether to steal that persons property" but of course, we don't.
So do you think it's OK to steal?
and - if not - why not?
Flicked a bible open to a random verse today, cant remember which one it was, but it basically said that slaves should fear their masters, as if they were fearing christ or god.Again pinz you're taking scripture out of context to fit am argument, for example the rape and his victim isn't right, just off the top of my head, they were forced to marry cause they'd been bucking, not cause he'd raped her. Try not to be so willing to accept everything you hear from evil bible. Com
There was a reason it was a theist I was asking.Stealing can be acceptable under some exceptional circumstances.
It's not beyond our comprehension, it just isn't bound by the rules we are. I think I've just explained what God is anyway, or have I not? Can you explain why the last 2 questions are relevant to my definition of God?
Because that was the culture of the time, perhaps God just created a guide for people with slaves rather than destroying the culture of the time.
And as I've said, the Hebrew probably means lay down rather than rape but even in that case it's not condoning the action, simply recording what happened.
Creation requires the paradigm of 'time', therefore a timeless creator is a logical fallacy. It is also special pleading to assert that your specific god is exempt from rules that govern everything else. To state that God is beyond rational capability, is to completely denounce Christianity in its entirety. It would be like accepting we live in a 2D world, and yet claim some people in a backwater of Judaea managed to walk off the page in a 3rd dimension, 2000 years ago, and somehow know the chartacteristics, name and personality of something that would be absolutely impossible for anybody to ever perceive. Also, if he precedes time, then he has no perception of it, and couldn't be interventionist.
That doesn't mean God won't change his mind, anyway your point is a bit useless because God using the tools available is not him changing his mind.
Why do you keep asking me to define my terms, what are you actually getting at? I dont believe in interventionist God as such BTW.
Says who
Or at school, or sunday school, or at home.People can beleive what they want as long as they don't start trying to shove those beliefs down other peoples' throat..which often seems to happen at the barrel of a gun
God has any tool he wants to have availble to him.
He can magic up commandments on stone tablets, part seas, inflict plagues, flood the earth, yet we are expected to believe he cannot give someone simple instructions on what to write? Or write it himself?