I guess my example was to hard for you understand. Let me put it to you like this. If God makes Fire but he wants you to see fire as Ice then you will see fire as Ice while still seeing fire and Ice
Printable View
I see, I see...forgive me, I'm pretty slow today, having not had entirely adequate sleep...but yea I see what you're saying now.
Except one more thing I need to clarify, are you just seeing the fire as ice, or is it actually fire and ice at the same time?
Okay we both have our defintion and understanding of Logic.
Now just because it's beyond our comprehension and our ideas of logical reasoning doesn't make it illogical by no means. Exmp: People in the 4th and 5th centuries knew for a fact that the Earth was flat because thinking otherwise was well beyond their comprehension. (i.e., Spherical Earth). Just because something is beyond our current comprehension doesn't make it illogical by definition.
Ok so this object in question is existing as fire and ice at the same time.
Would you say that the laws of this universe, created by omnipotent God, are perfect as is?
But then how could man know God at all?
Seismosaur, which post is your question directed at? Mine with a question presenting an idea of a universe with perfect laws or the whole fire-being-ice thing?
So you're saying that god made a universe where bad things happen, where we don't like these bad things and your response is that even though he didn't have to do it this way he did because it doesn't have to make sense to us (which he knew it wouldn't)? What kind of point is that? That humans don't like suffering is a plain fact. About as plain as the fact that it happens. Your point is a non-argument. god's creation is causing itself to hurt. Obviously he screwed up somewhere.
Wait, nevermind. That's only obvious on a human level. god has the power to not make sense and so that's a pretty good reason to not make any sense. Even if it wasn't a good reason to not make sense, it wouldn't matter! he's god! he doesn't need a good reason to not make sense!
My answer remains the same though I will further clarify if you so desire.
All forgiving means that he will forgive any sin of course but you must come seek forgiveness, you must truely mean it.
A sin is a sin and is never acceptable. If the person who sins doesn't know of God it is still a sin. This person who has never heard of God may or may not go to hell depending on who you ask. Even if you commit the sin just to get by it is still a sin and still requires you to seek forgiveness.
I believe that the church has some black marks on it's record, yes.
Not much I can say to this, it was a long time ago and things get lost in the ebb and flow of time. I agree that it can be confusing at times.
As far as adultery goes the scribes and pharisees brought a woman to jesus acused of adultery thinking they could trap him in conversation and when they asked him what to do he replied let he who has not sin cast the first stone.The woman was not harmed. For the full story see john8 1-12 in the bible or type it into your favorite search engine.
As far as slavery goes here is a bit from paul's letter to philemon, it is verses 15-16 "Perhaps this is why he was away from you for awhile, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother, beloeved especially to me but even more so to you, as a man in the lord."
As for Jesus and the Torah he basically said that he was not here to destroy it, just that he was going to fullfill a few prophecies, he meant that he wasn't going to throw out the old law, just make some changes. This is one of the most misinterpreted verses in the bible. If my religion is incorect, which I don't think it is, and another was right then I could end up going to hell.
Don't forget Islam or even Judaism, most religions have something like this in their doctrine
I like the smiley
it is, it is what works for me.
I don't think that homosexuality should be considered wrong by my religion but it is, Like I said if you truely believe then you will have to try to resist the urge. It's not fair, I don't like it, but thats the way it is. Finally I am done with your comments, I tried to answer like five times but kept getting computer crashes from the old and junky computer I'm working with.
because to have free will you have to have the ability to do things that are against what God commands, otherwise you are just a puppet.
How can you say that it is True love when the only emotion you can feel is love? You must be able to experience hate or anti-love to truely love someone or else it is forced love. Anti-love leads to bad choices. God wanted us to have free will because he loved us and any creature that has truely free-will has the ability to make bad decisions or else free will doesn't exsist.
Perfect is an aesthetic or moral value. It is not a relevant adjective to apply to the laws of the universe. The laws are what they are.
Our theories about the universe may be more or less accurate in their descriptions of the data. Nevertheless, the laws are not subject to our ethical judgments.
Your missing my point; thats not what I was arguing.
The point is if you criticise Seismosaur for using logic in the problem of evil; then you admit you can never use logic about God; but you must have used logic in order to rationalise your belief in God.
Basically you can't say its ok to use logic to justify the existence of God, but then criticise it when it brings up a fundamental problem with God.
If you stick to what you said about seismosaur's argument then you get trapped in that you have used the veryt hing you tell him he cannot use in order to come up with the idea he is criticising in the first place.
How is that not what you are arguing? I thought we found some common ground in regards to logic. The whole reason why I posted the definition regarding logic is so that we can get a general understanding that you and I were on the same page. How is the point missed when you mentioned this:
Quote:
Basically yeah, the study of principles by correct reasoning, but I just wanted to throw these out there as not to get completely bogged in the wording.
Remember Principles by Correct Reasoning?
Speculative, this argument is pointless you're assuming you have knowledge regarding why I believe in God when you don't know anything about me.
Refer back to my statement, an Omnipotent Being breaks Logic.
And what exactly did I use?
Yet your only reason in believeing in this deity is your immediate family and a 10k year old book which some how trumps the hundreds of other religions by default because your parents said so?
But wait-- I can't say that because that argument involves logic!
Severely not right in the head.
Or brainwashed. Usually the latter but sometimes the first-- See westboro Baptists group.
Perfect is flawless.
Creating something flawed on accident is a flaw.
Yes, I neglected to think of that yesterday :oops: I think maybe I shouldn't be posting here until I've gotten some sleep :lol:
Anyway, certainly there is a flaw: evil.
Or Satan, as some like to term it.
Ok Ne-yo.
How did you come to believe in God then?
I hope you aren't gonna be usin' logic, for your sake.