Challenge Vanni


Vanni Fucci
#121
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire

Sounds like you're trying to change the subject Vanni. Usually that's done by people who don't have much going in their favor. Surprises me that you would do that since you're so well prepared and handle yourself well in any argument, but still.......?

Ummm...sorry no, I was quite thoroughly intoxicated when I posted that comment, and I hope you can find it in your Christian heart to forgive me...

...and as you've offered nothing by way of refutation or comment on my most recent post, I have no option but to surmise that it is you, Ex, who are trying to change the topic...
 
Extrafire
#122
Quote:

Ummm...sorry no, I was quite thoroughly intoxicated when I posted that comment, and I hope you can find it in your Christian heart to forgive me...

Nothing to forgive, but thanks for the explanation. Didn't think you would ever cut & run.

Quote:

...and as you've offered nothing by way of refutation or comment on my most recent post, I have no option but to surmise that it is you, Ex, who are trying to change the topic...

Ummmm....sorry, no. As I mentioned in an earlier post my wife is rather unhappy about the amount of time I spend here. On friday evening I was also somewhat innebriated, a fact she commented on, and I made the alcohol fueled mistake of answering back with sarcasm. At that point, seeing as I was already in trouble, I decided I might as well spend some extra time here. Saturday morning there was a light dusting of snow outside and the temp was -3, but that was much warmer than in my bedroom, so to speak. Realizing that discretion was the better part of valor, I elected to take a day off the forum. I will get to you. Be patient.
 
Extrafire
#123
Quote:

This touches again on the Argument from Irreducible Complexity, a variant of the Argument from Design you seem to favour, for which the usual example is the eye in the stuff I've read, so lets look at that more closely. No question, the eye is a highly complex structure that depends on many components working together to function properly, but that's not in itself evidence of design. A close look at the human eye in fact suggests a structure cobbled together from available bits with no design at all. The rods and cones that detect light, for instance, actually point away from the pupil, they're in there backwards. The blood vessels that supply the eye trace out a pattern in front of the light sensors, so a ruptured vessel blocks light from them. That's why diabetics go blind. Any first year engineering student could come up with a better design than that.

Actually, you're the one who brought it up, but yes, I do like it.

You’re making a few presumptions here. Are you inferring that you know the purpose of the creation, what the creator had in mind? Maybe the deists are right, maybe the designer couldn’t care less about us, maybe its purpose was to create bacteria and we’re just a by product, or a food source for bacteria.

An engineer would know that all designs require optimizing a whole lot of parameters in order to get the best overall result. Many atheists have said that the eye is stupidly designed, because the retina is upside down. However, when you look at the overall design of the system, that happens to be a tradeoff that allows the eye to process a vast amount of oxygen that is required in vertebrates.

(Biologist George Ayoub, biologist, specialist in cellular physiology of the retina, “On The Design of the Vertebrate Retina”, Origins and Design 17:1) – “The design of the retina is responsible for its high acuity and sensitivity. It is simply untrue that the retina is demonstrably suboptimal, nor is it easy to conceive how it might be modified without significantly decreasing its function.”

However, if you really want a discussion on irreducible complexity, why not try the cell?

Quote:

The whole human body is a terrible piece of design from an engineering standpoint. Our backs ache, our feet hurt, our bellies sag, our eyes lose close focus as we age, veins in our rectums swell and protrude painfully, and in the absence of modern medical and sanitation technologies many of us wouldn't survive childhood and most of us wouldn't make it to 30. It's only in the last century that parents have been able to routinely count on their children surviving to adulthood instead of being carried off by various microbes, which have been from the beginning and are still the dominant lifeform on the planet.

Of course, if we are referring to the Judeo-Christian designer, there is no expectation that it would be a perfect world anyway. Biblically, there has been decay or deterioration because evil entered the world and disrupted the original design.

Quote:

There was a time when the earth could not sustain life. There will be a time in the future when it cannot sustain life. There are 8 other planets in this system that cannot sustain our kind of life. None of the hundred or so other planets we've discovered can sustain our kind of life. Conditions in most of the universe are fatal to our kind of life. We're not particularly special; we can live comfortably only here, on this little planet

Careful, you’ve just put forth one of the arguments for design. First (you didn’t say this part) in order for us to live here on this little planet, the universe must be exactly as it is, same size, same components, same time frame. Second, you are correct. This appears to be the only place where life in the universe exists, or even could exist. The conditions are so delicately balanced as to be impossible. Not only that, Carl Sagan (and someone else who’s name I have forgotten) once calculated that there should be at least 1 million planets in our galaxy with advanced life forms, but as more and more information became available, they downgraded their estimate to the point where they said that it now appears there should be no life forms, not even us. Sounds like an argument for divine intervention. Like Earth is a special place, designed jsut for us.

Quote:

If this is designed for us, the designer's an idiot.

If this was designed to be heaven on earth you would be right. But with either deism or theism, it wasn’t.
 
zenfisher
#124
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire

Quote:

Ahhh...you welcomed him back. There is a difference. God does not welcome you into his fold if you are unrepentant

He was repentant. He would not have been allowed back if he wasn't. And I wouldn't have loved him any less. It would have hurt me to see what he was doing to himself, but to bring him back without the repentance would have greatly increased the harm, not helped him.

Quote:

...even if you are there are some sins that transgress his forgiveness. Again ...not all loving.

What god do you refer to? Not mine.

You've proved my point. To be all loving you would forgive what ever the transgression.You would not place conditions on your love.( that would be as a god...not a human.)

Ohh... so you can worship Baal, Lugh or any number of other dieties and god will accept you back into the fold ? No questions asked.You can commit horrible crimes against others causing them great pain, not repent and god will allow you through the pearly gates. By his own admission he is a vengeful god...guess what that would mean...not all loving.
 
Extrafire
#125
Quote:

You've proved my point. To be all loving you would forgive what ever the transgression.You would not place conditions on your love.( that would be as a god...not a human.)

Let's suppose you have two children. One kills the other. Are you suggesting that if you loved him you wouldn't turn him in? If it was my kids, I would. It would hurt, but that would be justice. There's no conditions place on love, only forgiveness.

Quote:

Ohh... so you can worship Baal, Lugh or any number of other dieties and god will accept you back into the fold ? No questions asked.You can commit horrible crimes against others causing them great pain, not repent and god will allow you through the pearly gates.

That is what you have described as all loving. In a human, that would be stupid. In a god, no less so.
 
zenfisher
#126
THAT WOULD BE AS A GOD ...NOT A HUMAN)


So you'd rather loose both your children. One to death...one to jail and possibly death. Forgiveness is a part of love whether you want to believe that portion of the bible or not.


Quote:
...even if you are there are some sins that transgress his forgiveness. Again ...not all loving.


What god do you refer to? Not mine

Quote:
Ohh... so you can worship Baal, Lugh or any number of other dieties and god will accept you back into the fold ? No questions asked.You can commit horrible crimes against others causing them great pain, not repent and god will allow you through the pearly gates.


That is what you have described as all loving. In a human, that would be stupid. In a god, no less so.


Doesn't really answer the question I posed does it? You claimed your god would forgive all sins.Now you claim he would be stupid to do so. All I did was present some sins to prove that he is not all loving. As you claim.

Either god I all loving or he is not. A god would have the power to prevent the sin from happening...if he truly loved the transgressor...freewill or not. He would not allow his worshipper to commit a sin that would keep him in hell for eternity. I love you, but I never want to see you again...is not love.
 
Dexter Sinister
#127
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire

And by the way, you also formed your conclusion first.

No, that's wrong. You can have no idea what turmoil our exchanges on these forums has caused me. This is deeply personal and I'm somewhat reluctant to reveal what follows, but I see no other way to answer that honestly. It deserves an honest answer, and what the Hell, this is pretty much anonymous.

I was raised in a deeply religious household, and like most children I took what I was told by my parents as gospel until I was able to think for myself. And the more I learned, the less truthful those parental lessons seemed to be. It took me the better part of two decades to break free of it, and I hurt my parents and my relationship with them badly by rejecting their religious lessons. But I saw no other option, I could not believe as they did. My parents were academics (in the humanities, not the sciences I've been trained in), and it seems I've inherited that analytical style. My atheism comes from over 30 years of careful study and analysis and, frankly, prayer, but that latter seemed of no efficacy at all. I got nothing from it. My atheism has cost me much pain and grief, but nothing else makes sense to me, and I am nothing if not intellectually honest. I am simply unable to believe as you do.

There are those who have told me, including several of my five beloved siblings, that God has not yet seen fit to remove the scales from my eyes. Maybe so, but until He does, as a result of my analyses and studies I remain an atheist by conviction.

And yes, it hurts sometimes, because most of the people closest to me have other beliefs, but I try to serve what I perceive to be the truth, regardless of what I might want to believe is true. Wanting it doesn't make it so.

In particular, I do not wish to alienate you, or any other of the religious believers on these forums, but sometimes I shoot my mouth off and say things I later wish I hadn't. Eh, don't we all. You're obviously not stupid and you've obviously given much thought to these matters. My parents weren't stupid either, and they believed much as you do, and that always gives me pause. But the fact remains, I do not and at least for the moment cannot believe as you do, so I seek other explanations.

But despite our manifest and fundamental differences, I wish you well and I want to keep talking with you.
 
Vanni Fucci
#128
Hey Dex...thanks for giving us some insight into the reasons behind your favouring science over religion.

Interestingly, I have a similar story, although I live with that each and every day of my miserable, stinking life...

Just kidding though...:P

I married a Christian woman, and her two children go to Christian school, and none of them understand why I don't worship their god...

I found that avoiding the topic of religion goes a long way in my household, and if we can manage that, then everybody gets along...

There was some tension when my wife proposed that we have our baby daughter baptized into the Anglican Church...that is when my quest for truth truly began, as before that I didn't give too much thought as to how and why religion, and specifically Christianity, developed...

So my wife had an Anglican priest come over to the house to try to convince me that it was a good thing to indoctrinate my daughter into the Christ cult...

He said some prayers, and told some lies, and in the end I asked him one question

"Why do you need to tag her into your cult so young?"

...and he began by saying that all humans from the time they are born are rife with sin...

...that ended the civil discussion right there, and after lecturing him awhile about how he could possibly believe that an infant, without the mental capacity to make decisions, without the slimmest concept of morality, could fall from their state of innocence.

He then said that the children carry with them the sins of their parents, to which I replied that if a person commits a crime, do the children do the time...

He replied by saying that in some cultures that is the case...

"NOT IN CANADA IT'S NOT!!"

I told him that I would not allow his or any other cult to tag my little girl...and with that, I sent him packing...

My wife was pissed at me for a bit, but she got over it...I just hope she doesn't try that trick again anytime soon...
 
LadyC
#129
Ahem. Allow me to interrupt for a second.

Many churches don't believe in infant baptism. I was baptized at 3 months, but my Mum convinced us not to do the same. I believe baptism is a personal decision, so I've left it up to my kids to decide if it's right for them.

Of course, I'm hedging my bets by taking them to Sunday School.
 
Vanni Fucci
#130
That is correct LadyC, and in fact in the Anglican Church, as I understand it, it can go either way...but this priest was really pushing for me to do it, at one time insinuating that I may be guilty of being a bad parent for not baptizing her...

Bottom line is, I was open to the idea until he pissed me off...and he came up with no good reason why I should have then, or ever had my daughter baptized...

In addition, I think it does the children a disservice filling their head with these superstitions before they develop the skills necessary to recognize them as such...
 
LadyC
#131
Oh, I have to heartily disagree here. Please tell me you're not one of those horrible parents who don't do the whole Santa thing with their kids.

Bad Daddy.


I've already said I disagree with infant babtism, so I have a bias. However, I think I'd have done the same thing as you did. How dare he insinuate an innocent babe is full of her parents' sins.

That said, you were rather provoking. Surely you'll agree.
 
Vanni Fucci
#132
I may have provoked him, but that was my intent...and if he was not in a position to respond intelligently, then he shouldn't have shown up at all...

My question was valid, even if I presented it with thinly veiled contempt, and it required an answer that might have changed my mind, which at that time was still possible...he did not satisfy my preconceived requirements, which was to present his position logically and non-dogmatically...he was not able to deliver, and so it was a waste of his time and mine...

...I don't have much of a problem with Santa, as I don't recall anyone killing in Santa's name, nor have I heard of anyone acting with hostility or intolerance, or threatening with eternal damnation for those who do not believe in Santa...at the same time, I don't go over board in promoting, nor denying the existence of Santa...

They will learn the truth of the matter soon enough...
 
LadyC
#133
Your contempt was anything BUT thinly veiled, and you know as well as I do that there was nothing he could have said that would have changed your mind. :P

Anyone who kills in God's name, or Allah's or any other deity... is lying.

My daughter just discovered there's no Santa. She was irate that "You buy the gifts and pretend they're from Santa. Parents lie to do nice things for their kids."

How dare us.
 
Andem
#134
Quote: Originally Posted by LadyC

Your contempt was anything BUT thinly veiled, and you know as well as I do that there was nothing he could have said that would have changed your mind. :P

Anyone who kills in God's name, or Allah's or any other deity... is lying.

Unless they hear voices in their heads Doesn't god talk to George W. Bush? Apparantly he kills in God's name, too.
 
LadyC
#135
If God is talking to George, it's apparent that George isn't listening to God.
 
Vanni Fucci
#136
Quote: Originally Posted by LadyC

Parents lie to do nice things for their kids."

...and preachers lie to keep people in the pews...
 
Dexter Sinister
#137
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire

Careful, you’ve just put forth one of the arguments for design... The conditions are so delicately balanced as to be impossible.

No I haven't, and no they're not. I presume you mean impossible without divine intervention. They're obviously possible, because here we all are. Your arguments consistently look to me like some version of one or more of the following, substituting the Creator or the Designer or whatever you conceive of this postulated being to be, for God:

1. Cosmological Argument
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

2. Teleological Argument (Argument from Design)
(1) Check out this universe. Isn't it nice?
(2) Therefore, God exists.

3. Argument from Intervention
(1) I say God causes certain things to happen.
(2) Those things happen.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

4. Argument From Possible Worlds (the Fine Tuning Argument)
(1) If things had been different, then things would be different.
(2) That would be bad.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

5.. Argument From Ignorance
(1) Things happen that we can’t explain.
(2) I can imagine only one reason these things occur.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

The argument from design, which appears to be the essence of your position, in every version of it I’ve ever encountered, including yours, begs the question. It assumes the universe was designed in order to demonstrate it was designed. The conclusion is embedded in the assumptions, which is a logical fallacy. Design is a logical possibility, but it is not the only or the most parsimonious conclusion possible from the evidence, and in fact violates at least three of the six rules for clear thinking I posted at www.canadiancontent.net/forums/about4489.html: falsifiability, logic, and completeness. It also ranks as an extraordinary claim, and thus requires extraordinary evidence in support of it, which has not been provided.

Quote:

...Carl Sagan (and someone else who’s name I have forgotten)...

probably Frank Drake

Quote:

...once calculated that there should be at least 1 million planets in our galaxy with advanced life forms, but as more and more information became available, they downgraded their estimate to the point where they said that it now appears there should be no life forms, not even us. Sounds like an argument for divine intervention.

You're misrepresenting their conclusions. It depends entirely on what assumptions you put into what's called the Drake Equation, and it is not an argument for divine intervention. All it says is that we don't have enough information to form a definitive conclusion. Divine intervention remains an assumption, not a conclusion or an argument.
 
Jay
#138
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

I doubt your being serious here, but I'll humour you. There is some science in the bible, but the bible isn't a science book....if it was it would be huge, and there would be no mysteries and there would be no question if there was a GOD and there would be no choices and no faith; the whole of this facade would be for not.

I find you to be quite ridiculous at times, Jay...

An all-knowing God would have known that his creations would have eventually worked out the vagaries of physics and come to understand how and why the universe was created...

If God created the universe, by causing the Big Bang to happen, why do not the first verses of Genesis read:

"In the beginning there was nothing, and then God made the Big Bang, and the universe expanded"

God, as creator of the universe, and master over time, matter and energy, should have known that we would one day understand the implications of that statement...

The authors of the bible were oblivious to science, so to suggest that they were divinely inspired is ludicrous, unless we are to believe that God too is oblivious to science...

I know you find me ridiculous at times, vanni, and that’s OK, I would imagine that you find Christians in general ridiculous too, so it doesn't mean all that much. I would imagine also that it’s good for you to be ridiculous at times, good for the soul so to speak.

I actually had a post to further this conversation, where I used a quote from the bible to support my idea and I thought it was very relevant, but then I got thinking, Vanni doesn't give a ****...so I deleted it.
 
Jay
#139
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

My wife was pissed at me for a bit, but she got over it...I just hope she doesn't try that trick again anytime soon...

I don't get it....and it is none of my business anyways, but if it would make your wife happy why wouldn't you just do it anyways.

It's not as if you believe the water has any power, and therefore no meaning, and it's not a "tag" as such, and you probably think your daughter will think its all BS in the future anyways....

Just my thoughts.
 
Vanni Fucci
#140
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

I actually had a post to further this conversation, where I used a quote from the bible to support my idea and I thought it was very relevant, but then I got thinking, Vanni doesn't give a ****...so I deleted it.

If I didn't give a ****, Jay, do you really think I would bother with all of this?
 
Vanni Fucci
#141
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

My wife was pissed at me for a bit, but she got over it...I just hope she doesn't try that trick again anytime soon...

I don't get it....and it is none of my business anyways, but if it would make your wife happy why wouldn't you just do it anyways.

No you don't...no it's not, but I offered to divulge this information...and I have other ways of making my wife happy...

...ways that do not include betraying my daughter to those who would stifle her capacity for free thought with their mind-numbing Christ cult dogma...
 
Jovey
#142
Extrafire (and for others interested)

The tv series "The Elegant Universe" is available for viewing online at the Nova website.

www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html (external - login to view)

I also read his book but skipped through parts of it that managed to bore/confuse me. This series was presented in a manner that proved interesting and easier to understand. You need quicktime or realplayer to view it and the good thing is that it's divided up into sections if your viewing time is limited or if only certain sections interest you.

Jovey
 
Vanni Fucci
#143
Hey thanks for the link Jovey...
 
Vanni Fucci
#144
Why Stephen Hawking's Cosmology Precludes a Creator (external - login to view)
 
Dexter Sinister
#145
Very interesting paper Vanni, good link. I think, though, that I'd strenuously disagree with one of its opening premises, that science has conceded the origin question to the theists. My reading of the literature generally indicates science has conceded nothing of the sort, though there are certainly individual scientists who've used the word God in certain metaphorical ways that theists fasten on as evidence of science's support for their position.

Science simply doesn't consider a Creator as a useful hypothesis. It provides no clearer understanding, makes no predictions, generates no testable hypotheses, and offers no new insights. It cuts off all of those things by appearing to be the ultimate answer to everything we don’t understand. That is in no way a useful explanation of anything, it reduces it all to magic, incoherence, and incomprehensibility. Science is perfectly comfortable saying, "We don't understand it, but we're working on it." The theist view, as exemplified by Extrafire's remarks here and elsewhere on things like cell biology and blood clotting, seems to me to be, "We don't understand it, so God must have done it," which explains nothing.
 
Jay
#146
Quote: Originally Posted by Vanni Fucci

Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

I actually had a post to further this conversation, where I used a quote from the bible to support my idea and I thought it was very relevant, but then I got thinking, Vanni doesn't give a ****...so I deleted it.

If I didn't give a ****, Jay, do you really think I would bother with all of this?

I think you care to drive ppl from Christ...

I doubt you care about my ramblings about the bible though.
 
Vanni Fucci
#147
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Very interesting paper Vanni, good link. I think, though, that I'd strenuously disagree with one of its opening premises, that science has conceded the origin question to the theists.

I had a problem with that too, Dex, but I think what Mr. Smith was alluding to was the philosophical aspects of cosmology, and even then, the theists arrived at their conclusions through false assumptions.
 
Vanni Fucci
#148
Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

I think you care to drive ppl from Christ...

No, that too is an erroneous assumption of my intent, Jay. I would defend your right to believe what you want, but religion should be a personal experience, and should be practiced responsibly. Once those beliefs, or the resultant effects, leave the confines of your home or church, then they became fair game.

By the same token, I could say that your church cares to drive people to Christ, and away from free thought, and in the end, at least I'm being honest with you.


Quote: Originally Posted by Jay

I doubt you care about my ramblings about the bible though.

No, I do not, but neither do I care about the ramblings of the Torah, Quran, or the Rig Veda, or anything purporting to be divinely inspired...none of those scriptures should hold any dominion over our hearts and minds. I see them as the greatest stumbling block to true societal progress, and the confluence of our species.
 
Extrafire
#149
Hi Vanni, sorry to have taken so long to answer your post. There've been a lot of demands on my time lately. (I do have a life) I see the rest of you have been busy during my absence.

Your theory of mulitple universes doesn't reguire a creator?

Well, let’s see. Until the Big Bang theory came along, conventional wisdom (in the science community) held that the universe was infinite. (They should have known better, there was plenty of evidence that indicated it was not, but they chose to ignore it). When the Big Bang came along the main thrust was to try to disprove it, and they felt confident that they would soon enough. The reason they wanted it disproved was expressed by Sir Arthur Eddington who said, “We must give evolution time to get started.” He well recognized that 13.7 billion years was insufficient time for that, the alternative being that absolute no-no, creation. As test after test verified the big bang, there were increasing efforts to get around it, or again in the words of Eddington, “find a loophole” by proposing such things as steady state theory, a rebounding universe, cyclic universe, quantum fluctuations and, chaotic inflation theory (the latest, and only multi-universes theory that has any chance of credibility, however slight).

The whole idea of multiple universes was first hypothesized as a solution to a quantum measurement problem in physics, but more recently it has become popular as a metaphysical escape hatch from the theistic implications of the incredible fine tuning of our universe, as some scientists have openly admitted. The idea is usually presented as purely scientific but goes well beyond what science can honestly endorse.

But let’s suppose this highly speculative idea was possible. I’ll use a simple example to illustrate the problems with it. For Christmas I bought my wife a bread making machine. For it to generate bread, we first need the well designed machine, with the right circuitry, heating element, timer etc. Then we need to put in all the right ingredients in the right proportions in the right order in order to get the bread we want. Bread is far less complex than the universe but it requires a lot of specific conditions to make. Otherwise you get something, but not an edible loaf of bread. Likewise, any mechanism that could produce functioning universes would require the right structure, the right mechanism, and the right ingredients to work, and in spite of coming out of nothing, there still is a requirement for input.

First it would require a mechanism to supply the energy required for the bubble universes (an inflaton field that acts as a reservoir of unlimited energy). Second, a mechanism to form the bubbles (general relativity). Third, a mechanism to convert the energy of the inflaton field to normal mass/energy, and fourth, a way to vary the constants of physics so that by random chance it could produce some universes that have the right fine tuning to sustain life (superstring theory). And it would have to make trillions of trillions of uncountable trillions of universes just to get one component such as the cosmological constant to have the right value in order to produce a life sustaining universe. And that’s just one of a whole host of incomprehensibly fine tuned components that are required. For example, according to Roger Penrose, the “original phase-space volume” required fine tuning to an accuracy of one part in 10 billion multiplied by itself 123 times, a number so huge that to write it would require more zeros than the number of elementary particles in the whole universe. Or how about the expansion rate of the universe, tuned to one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. The cosmological constant is tuned to at least 1 part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. There are more than 30 such parameters that need such precise calibration in order to produce a life sustaining universe. When all of them are combined the possibility, as Hawking said, vanishes.

Which means, if it is true, a creator is required.

But, you’ll say, as long as there is a possibility even in a number that big, it could happen without a creator. Talk about faith! If I were to wager with you that I could flip a coin and get heads 50 times in a row, and then was able to do it, you would insist that the game was rigged. Yet that’s possible to do. In fact the odds are 1 chance in a million billion, but there’s no way you would believe it wasn’t rigged. Yet, with odds so small the number can’t even be written within the confines of the universe, you think it hasn’t been rigged. Now THAT is faith.
 
Extrafire
#150
Quote:

Doesn't really answer the question I posed does it? You claimed your god would forgive all sins.Now you claim he would be stupid to do so. All I did was present some sins to prove that he is not all loving. As you claim.

Either god I all loving or he is not. A god would have the power to prevent the sin from happening...if he truly loved the transgressor...freewill or not. He would not allow his worshipper to commit a sin that would keep him in hell for eternity. I love you, but I never want to see you again...is not love.

You're twisting my words around. I said there are no sins that are unforgivable. But to forgive everything whether there was repentance or not would be stupid. In fact, in a situation like that, there would be no such thing as sin. Power to prevent the sin from happening does not imply using that power. And there is no free will when you are not free to do as you choose. A sin committed by a worshiper would likely not keep him in hell. One committed by a non worshiper might.
 

Similar Threads

64
Vanni and Rev meet up
by peapod | Sep 22nd, 2005
2
For vanni and rev
by peapod | Aug 7th, 2005
8
Hi vanni
by peapod | Mar 22nd, 2005
no new posts