If what you mean by tiring is that he becomes fatigued and requires rest, I would have to say no.
However, it appears that God can tire of things, in some sense. By this I mean that He can decide that he has had enough of a particular state of affairs and thus set about ridding himself of the irritation (for lack of a better word).
Ladies and gentlemen, what you see above is a classic example of a deteriorating conversation.
The individual begins with an assertion which is, in the very least, articulate of the person's position on a particular subject.
For lack of any support for their view, however, the individual begins to simply repeat himself.
Frustrated that his repetitions are ineffective in producing any concession by his opponent, the individual begins to supplement them with personal attacks.
Eventually, even the repetitions are abandoned, and the personal attacks become the entirety of the dialogue.
Generally, these personal attacks will begin with the individual requesting that his opponent "use his brain" or some variation upon this, and will descend into simple name-calling.
This naturally results in the individual being "blocked" by his opponent.
If the individual has any inclinations toward video blogging, he will likely create a video claiming that his opponent's decision was born out of cowardice.
He may also create a new account for the express purpose of continuing his harrassment of this opponent until the new account is found out and is itself blocked. The individual may continue this process across a number of accounts until he becomes bored and moves on to greener pastures.
16? fair enough, okay if that bullcrap explanation from god works for you more powere to yah. you need to pay more attention in school, have fun worshipping your jewish carpenter zombie.
Trust me, I am using my head quite a bit. Perhaps you ought to refrain from personal attacks and stick to the arguments. As it is, I am seriously considering blocking you from posting any more repetitive and/or abusive comments.
because THEY ARENT FIXED they rotate what on earth don't you understand about that? anytime other than night they wouldn't be there. besides stars do move at night fool, they arent in the same place all the time.
Sir, the people at the time Genesis was written did indeed believe that the stars rotated, and moved from place to place, because THAT is how it looks.
Stars do rotate, but they follow a "fixed" cycle. The statement you quoted is entirely accurate, as I have already shown.
If you continue to simply repeat yourself (and resort to name-calling) I will simply have to remove your comments to avoid the unnecessary clutter.
i'm saying if it were god up in the heavens who created everything why didn't he give them 1 bit of information that they weren't already aware of? why bother?
The purpose of the beginning passages of Genesis is summarized in the first line: "In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". That is the entirety of these passages' purpose.
You see, at the time that these words were written, it was commonly believed that the stars, Moon, Sun, Earth, etc. were themselves gods. This passage of Genesis is a response to this idea, essentially saying "These are not gods, these are just lights."
Actually, that is not how it appears. It appears as if the stars were circling the Earth along with the Sun and the Moon. In reality, they are indeed "fixed to the sky".
As a matter of fact, the statement is perfectly and unequivocally true in that the stars are "in the sky" and nowhere else. They are "fixed".
uhm my statement is that isn't the real explanation for what seperates the day from the night. that isn't even close to how it actually works, and you are saying an allpowerful god told us this.
I am not exactly sure what you mean. I have tied each one of your contentions into how the real world actually does work. So I am honestly not sure how my logic is faulty in the way you say it is.
Then could not being "fixed" here refer to "end[ing] back up in the same place at night"? That seems like a valid interpretation to me. But perhaps you see it differently?
Day is, by definition, the time when the Sun shines on the earth. Night is, by definition, the time when the Sun does not shine upon the Earth. That certainly sounds like a significant separation to me. But perhaps I simply do not understand what you are getting at.
You see, the problem I have with this objection is that even though the Moon essentially borrows its light from the sun, it is still the Moon itself which is shining the light upon the Earth. This being the case, I don't see that it is inaccurate to refer to the Moon as a sort of "light".
Um, I think you ought to take your own advice and use the reply button. As it is, your responses are a bit confusing. If I were you, I would also consider placing whatever you are replying to in quotes or perhaps brackets.
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Sir, you cannot change something which "was written well over ten centuries ago. You can translate it in varying degrees of accuracy, but you cannot genuinely change it."
i have absolutely no clue what you mean by that, can you not?
and also it says the stars are fixated in the sky, which they quite obviously aren't. it makes god look like he has about as much knowledge of the universe as a 6 year old child would have today. only that kid would know the stars aren't fixated.
[] and also it says the stars are fixated in the sky, which they quite obviously aren't. []
Here, I am afraid you would be wrong. Were the stars not fixated in the sky, at least after a fashion, sailors would be unable to navigate by them. Because of the consistency of the stars, many sailors of times past have avoided starvation. If the stars were not at all "fixated" how are we able to identify constellations?
But you are right, a six-year-old kid might think otherwise.
and also that statement wouldn't hold true if you were somewhere like alaska.
if god took the time to tell people how he made the world and coundn't give anymore than assumptions that were already around at the time why even bother?
[] and also that statement wouldn't hold true if you were somewhere like alaska. []
Actually, they have night and day in Alaska. As a matter of fact, you can essentially go all the way up to the north pole, and you still have night and day. It simply does not follow the normal 24-hour pattern which we are used to.
Sir, you cannot change something which was written well over ten centuries ago. You can translate it in varying degrees of accuracy, but you cannot genuinely change it.
And tell me, if the translators of this version were overly concerned with the text appearing to "make sense", would they have translated verse 21 using the term "sea monsters." Personally, I doubt it.
wow that is amazing how much the bibles vary. they took out all the stuff in the original text that makes what is said absolutely wrong lol. christians are having to change the original texts because it sounds stupid.
the original says god made greater light for the day and lesser light for the night, because people then were too stupid to realize the moon only reflects light.
it also says the stars are fixated in the sky. that's why they thought everything revolved around us. stupid god
[] they took out all the stuff in the original text that makes what is said absolutely wrong lol. []
Actually, had you done any research into this particular translation (NASB), you would find that this is one of the handful of versions which actually translate the original texts word-for-word. Most other translations approximate the meanings on a phrase-by-phrase basis. Ask any reputable scholar: this is an excellent translation.
[] the original says god made greater light for the day and lesser light for the night, because people then were too stupid to realize the moon only reflects light. []
First, that is what this translation says as well: "God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. " - Genesis 1:16 (NASB)
Second, I don't see how this betrays any belief that the Moon actually generates its own light.
You are 16 years old. May I suggest you go and play with your marbles,untill you have some experience in life. Sorry if it hurts, but I know what I am talking about. I was the same when I was 16 .
Sir, this is a classic example of what is referred to as the "ad hominem" fallacy. Simply put, it does not in any way matter how old I am, you have not invalidated my position (Assuming you actually know my position, which I doubt).
That being said, exactly what sort of experience would I need to acquire before I am qualified to produce an artistic representation of the words of an ancient Jewish text?
That is exactly the point I think, you don't have to be qualified, anyone can do it. Any smart person and any moron. Anyone who thinks anything can do it.
You just said "what sort of experience would I need to acquire before I am qualified to produce an artistic representation of an ancient Jewish text"...From that I thought you were trying to make the point that a person need no experience to do such a thing. Sorry if I was insulting.
My question was not rhetorical. And even if it were, that in no way applies that that "Anyone who thinks anything can do it." I would like to think that the presentation requires some sort of talent, but perhaps I am mistaken?
What on Earth would make you think that I was in any way implying that in order to attain salvation, one needs the ability to create slides and arrange them into a YouTube video? That is insane.
Im not talking about youtube. I am talking about your understanding of the bible and interpretation of it. You have a perfect understanding of it and most people do not because it takes a certain type of person to get it. It isn't for everyone, because god did not make it for everyone.
It is about your correct understanding of the bible. Everyone else is interpreting and is incorrect. And those people are not living there lives right and are going to hell. Because the bible was written only for some of the population, and the rest who cannot understand it is going to hell.
[]It is about your correct understanding of the bible.[]
This is not about my understanding of the Bible at all. It is merely an artistic representation of the words themselves. That is all it is. This video intentionally takes no stance on how one is to understand the passage, and does not even take a position on the truth value of the passage.
If it takes no stance on how to understand the passage then why do you argue with people when they share their opinions on how they understand the passage as if they are wrong?
I don't know that I have argued in that vein within this particular comments section. I have spent my time mainly staving off comments like the ones you have posted. I do, certainly, have an opinion on how these passages are meant to be taken and will defend that opinion when the situation calls for it. But as to this particular video, I am leaving my opinion out of it.
So again, you are showing your correct opinion about the bible and others who are incorrect will either listen to you or go to hell, because you(the one with talent) can interpret the bible correctly for people (without talent) so they may understand it better because it is too complicated for them to understand to begin with and will go to hell otherwise.
I am going to be more frank with you than usual: the absurdity of this comment utterly astounds me. How could you even conceivably come to that conclusion based on my statements in this thread?
I never said nor implied that "talent" was required for spiritual salvation. I merely said that some talent was required to create this video.
And for the last time: this is an artistic representation of an ancient text, nothing more, and can be appreciated regardless of one's theological standing.
It is appreciated no doubt. And I do accept that this is your artistic representation of the text. But that representation holds your opinion of the subject matter. there are many opinions of the bible and of this subject. So, in creating this video you have shown that this is the way you interpret the text, and believe it to be correct, meaning you believe others to be incorrect. meaning you believe those others are going to hell. No?
you read the text and supplement it with images. The images hold your opinion. I've heard people say that the genesis story is about the first single cell organisms splitting. That persons images that they would supplement with would be very different. So yes it does hold your opinion. Maybe if you had just read it without images, it wouldn't.
My opinion is that it is make believe. You do not think that will play a factor in how I will spend eternity?
[]My opinion is that it is make believe. You do not think that will play a factor in how I will spend eternity?[]
I don't see any reason why it would. Salvation, according to Christianity, is not dependent upon one's opinion of the first chapter of Genesis, but upon one's opinion of Jesus of Nazareth.
Oh by "this text" you ment genisis specifically. I though you ment the bible in its whole. My fault.
Well if they don't hold your opinion they are still representing things litterally. You are reading the text, and showing literal pictures to what you are reading.
Is someone supposed to take this anyway they want?
Yes, the image are literal representations of the words spoken, but this is not to say that a literal reading of the text represents what actually occurred or what the writer meant to communicate. If someone wrote a poem containing the phrase "And then Came the Grim Reaper", and I illustrated this as a man with a pale face, black robes, and a very large scythe, would that mean that I take the writer's meaning to be literal? No, not necessarily.
Yes, DonExodus2, Thunderfoot and others are very educated in the theories that they believe. I'm educated in Lord of the Rings but as neat as the story is I just cant make it true.
Yes but lucky for DonExodus2, Thunderf00t, Ken Miller, and any other scientist, they actually have empirical evidence that strongly confirms evolution... lord of the rings... does not.
Nor does creation according to genesis.
It's a fine story to hear, but unless there's empirical corroborating evidence, it's just a story, or, if you believe in god, an anecdote, either way genesis should never be taken literally or else you're probably a fundamentalist crazy person.
That would be a typical "argument from personal incredulity" and is an often cited fallacy of creationists. But seeing design does not imply a sentient designer, just as snowflakes come together due to simple chemical properties of water and a nice crystal lattice when freezing, life can come about to look just as "designed" even without a god to design.
God may exist, but creationism is a lackluster argument that stands in contrast to evidence.
Only the fool uses fallacies to support his point.
Because some people actually enjoy engaging in the art of debate, enjoy finding holes in the opponent's argument and exploiting them like a game of chess, though with people like you who ask philosophical questions about the big bang that science has no answer to (nor need to provide one) and instead substitute god for each question, well, I'll admit it becomes more like playing a child. When you abandon the conventions of logic, you destroy that clever interplay.
Okay. Now what scientific observations and theories support your view of creation? I suggest you check out videos made by guys smarter than me: Donexodus2, Thunderf00t and potholer54. They're very good and educational in this matter.
Very hard to glean if you don't actually make an opinion. Perekele is being a bit presumptive by making your video your opinion rather than just a reading of the bible, but since you make no effort to express an opinion, assumptions are all that we can make so far.
Obviously you have little interest in the factual matter, you have said yourself you are agnostic in certain areas like this and the answer is really unimportant, which puts me in the position to ask, why read the creation account without any philosophical or factual opinion on it? It is a good animation, no question, but the content and purpose is not clearly defined. If you care to clarify it's appreciated.
There is quite a bit of controversy surrounding how this text should be taken. So, I decided to forgo the commentary and simply present the text for what it is in my own, somewhat creative way.
The question of exactly how we are to take this writing comes up immediately after the presentation of it, but that is a question I do not now presume to answer with any certainty.
He just wanted you to make a clear opinion, some people don't have one on certain things, I know of many things of which I have no opinion. It would just be nice if we didn't beat around the bush about these things, you either are, are not, or have no sure opinion on the matter. But people need to ask a bit more nicely.
Unlikely, maybe, but not beyond any reasonable possibility. Anyway, the age of the earth is such an unimportant issue, I am happy to concede that to you with no remorse. There are many other things which need to be addressed which are not getting addressed. And no, I am not going to debate you on this, since I am not very well-versed in the science and math behind all of this stuff.
Why did it take him so much time to make everything? And why is the declaration of it being good made after making it. Wouldn't he know it was going to be good before he made it?
according to the story he is in the boundaries of liner events. And a victim of time like anyone else. Days pass and he makes different things on different days.
A perspective of one outside time. The six days only work within time while God is outside of it. While it may be six days of time, it is not six days of timelessness.
So what god does is governed by time but he himself isn't inside it? He does something and to us it looks like a day whereas to him its just all simultaneous?
Um... no, I don't see why that situation would. Even though God is outside of time, anything He does in this world is going to take effect at some point within time, as this world IS subject to time.
Since the things he does is affected by time I would say he is confined by it. Like...he can do anything, like flood the world. But it will take some time for him to do it. I don't understand how that doesn't take away a little from his omnipotence.
If I knock over the first block of a row of a mile long dominoes, I can't claim that the last one is already knocked over (even if from my perspective it is) The person sitting at the end is going to say that I am a slave to the natural way of things and the dominoes have to knock each other consecutively first before I have actually knocked the last one down. So for him he is omnipotent but from our perspective...he is constricted to the same laws of time as we are.
No... It took the Earth a day to be created. You seemed to be getting it, but I think you lost it. As you pointed out, the best conception we have of timelessness is everything occurring simultaneously. With that in mind, it doesn't matter how long it took the earth to be created since the earth is within time.
For him is simultaneous. For us it isn't. From our perspective it takes god time to complete something. Since god cannot complete something instantly it binds him to the rules of time. Just because for him it happened instantly doesn't mean that is the case in objective reality.
The ability to watch the future as if it were no different then looking at the present, the ability to affect change in a certain situation in anticipation for the future, the ability to create time, etc.
Think about it this way. If I were to draw a picture, any lines that I add are going to be two-dimensional and confined to the page, but I myself can look at the whole picture and even set the picture down and walk away if I so choose, because I am not confined to it.
Thats not a very good analogy. Because you would have to have a picture already made from your perspective, whereas from my perspective it had a beginning and end. And in the time (from my perspective) it took you to draw it you had to be at the picture drawing from start to finish.
the problem is while you say (and swear) it was drawn instantly (or was always drawn). Whereas me and a million other people saw you draw it and saw it took you X amount of time. And in that time you were sitting at the pad.
No, you clearly misunderstood the analogy. If you didn't, I'm not sure what else to say. Please reread it but think of the space in the analogy as time.
The analogy doesn't answer my argument. I'm saying from our perspective it took god a day to make the earth. It doesn't matter if in his perspective it was always their or instantaneous. It looks to us as if it took god time to do something.
Well, the fact that He can see the future and act on things with that knowledge. Plus, it is logically necessary, if He created the universe, for Him to be outside of time.
If he could see the future and act on things with that knowledge there would have been no need to drown to earth (among other things). Thats right...it is necessary to extrapolate a theory out of no evidence whatsoever to explain god.
Our interaction with god is a very reactionary one. He reacts to the earth at the time it is in (sending christ, drowning the earth, the ten commandments,kicking adam and eve out of eden). This is not signs of a being that can see or knows the future.
I was simply making the point that you said "it is logically necessary...ect" And I agree with you, but to me that is just saying "it is logically necessary for me to make up an explanation out of no evidence to explain my god"
Because it is reactionary. to say otherwise is to say he has already foreseen it or already reacted to it saying it will always be the way it did and always will be the way it will.
saying it is logically necessary for god to be outside of time is like saying it is logically necessary for Santa Claus to be outside of time because otherwise how could he make it to all those houses in one night. do you see the parallel?
And if a being knew the future, whether they were reacting to it when it happened or before, it wouldn't matter. Any way you slice it, the being IS going to be reacting to the event.
[]do you see the parallel?[]
No, not really. Santa Claus could easily move at super-speeds yet still be within time. It is not logically necessary for him to be outside of time.
So god is just waiting for us to move our peices in the chess game of time...and when it is appropriate he moves his?
lol super-speeds or outside of time still prove the same point. Both are made up extrapolations taken from no evidence to explain something otherwise unexplainable.
[]So god is just waiting for us to move our peices in the chess game of time...and when it is appropriate he moves his?[]
I suppose if you want to put it that way, sure.
[]Both are made up extrapolations taken from no evidence to explain something otherwise unexplainable.[]
I don't know about the Santa Claus thing, but I happen to know that God's being outside of time is not some new-fangled explanation in retreat from modern thinking. This isn't some excuse we've made up, it's doctrine.
I think you are the one who is confused. An omnipotent being would know everything which means you could never do anything different then what he already knew you were going to do. It takes away choice.
Inventing the idea to fill a logical hole is exactly what they did. The question was raised. and without testing it...the clergy made it up to answer the question.
Sir, you have done nothing but reassert this argument repetitively and it is beginning to get annoying. You haven't provided anything at all which is new, nor have you even attempted to answer my rebuttal to it. You have done absolutely nothing but reassert it, and it simply holds no logical ground whatsoever. Please come up with something new or stop wasting my time.
]The question was raised. and without testing it...the clergy made it up to answer the question.[
That outline of our conversation does help me understand how your mind works. You've mixed and matched different parts of our conversation... as a matter of fact, I am pretty sure some of that is more or less fabricated.
[]I fail to see how you have destroyed my argument []
That isn't a rebuttal. I could care less what you can or cannot see unless you can provide some reasons for it.
[]arent doing the same thing by repeating yourself. []
TC - referrence to previous episodes of this pattern, pointing out the fact of the constant reassertions and callings out of such as such
And now we are here where I shall tell you that the ball is in your court and as soon as you support your argument, I will be happy to address anything new you have to offer. Okay?
Tell you what. it isnt an argument. just a statement that I am making for you to think about critically. since god can do anything, you can say anything to explain him when someone calls him into question. you can make anything up like "god is outside of time" or "god is eternal" even subjective views on god that most would consider to be inaccurate like "god created Katrina because he hates blacks" Since anyone can make up anything it calls everything into question. not argument. statement.
Sir, have you noticed that you have just attempted to weasel your way out of being subject to logic by changing what you said from an "argument" to a "statement" which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. People can get away with saying anything by just saying "This isn't an argument, just a statement for you to think about critically". And what is an argument, may I ask, if not a statement to think about critically?
WAT DOES GOD REALLI LOOK LIKE ?.?
1aloneful 1 year ago
Which version of Creation in the Bible do you like best?
Genesis Chapter ONE,
in which humans were created AFTER plants and animals?
Or chapter TWO, in which man was created BEFORE plants and animals?
Chapter ONE,
in which man and woman were created at the same time?
Or chapter TWO,
in which man was created before the plants
and woman was created after the animals?
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Does God tire?
Bemuse 2 years ago
I suppose it depends on what you mean.
If what you mean by tiring is that he becomes fatigued and requires rest, I would have to say no.
However, it appears that God can tire of things, in some sense. By this I mean that He can decide that he has had enough of a particular state of affairs and thus set about ridding himself of the irritation (for lack of a better word).
Why do you ask?
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Ladies and gentlemen, what you see above is a classic example of a deteriorating conversation.
The individual begins with an assertion which is, in the very least, articulate of the person's position on a particular subject.
For lack of any support for their view, however, the individual begins to simply repeat himself.
Frustrated that his repetitions are ineffective in producing any concession by his opponent, the individual begins to supplement them with personal attacks.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Eventually, even the repetitions are abandoned, and the personal attacks become the entirety of the dialogue.
Generally, these personal attacks will begin with the individual requesting that his opponent "use his brain" or some variation upon this, and will descend into simple name-calling.
This naturally results in the individual being "blocked" by his opponent.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
If the individual has any inclinations toward video blogging, he will likely create a video claiming that his opponent's decision was born out of cowardice.
He may also create a new account for the express purpose of continuing his harrassment of this opponent until the new account is found out and is itself blocked. The individual may continue this process across a number of accounts until he becomes bored and moves on to greener pastures.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Note, this is the first time I have blocked anyone who was not advertising a webbsite.
I will leave the above conversation (for lack of a better word) posted on this page for educational purposes.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
can't explain anything to an idiot, that's their major downfall.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
i have, you are just an idiot.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
16? fair enough, okay if that bullcrap explanation from god works for you more powere to yah. you need to pay more attention in school, have fun worshipping your jewish carpenter zombie.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
wow, you have a lot of stuff to learn about the world, how old are you?
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
no, that isn't what jewish culture believed. egyptian either. it was only greek civilization.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Are you going to cite any evidence for this? As far as I know, you are certainly going against the scholarly grain here.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
seriously, use your head a bit before telling me stuff like that.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Trust me, I am using my head quite a bit. Perhaps you ought to refrain from personal attacks and stick to the arguments. As it is, I am seriously considering blocking you from posting any more repetitive and/or abusive comments.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
sailors can use that because we know how the world works, they weren't able to before galileo.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Wrong again. Sailors were using the stars for navigation long before Galileo.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
because THEY ARENT FIXED they rotate what on earth don't you understand about that? anytime other than night they wouldn't be there. besides stars do move at night fool, they arent in the same place all the time.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
[] because THEY ARENT FIXED they rotate []
Sir, the people at the time Genesis was written did indeed believe that the stars rotated, and moved from place to place, because THAT is how it looks.
Stars do rotate, but they follow a "fixed" cycle. The statement you quoted is entirely accurate, as I have already shown.
If you continue to simply repeat yourself (and resort to name-calling) I will simply have to remove your comments to avoid the unnecessary clutter.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
ugh you git. saying stars are fixated in the sky isn't TRUE. why tell them stars are fixated in the sky because THATS HOW IT LOOKS TO YOU.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
why in the world tell people things that aren't even true, just that they already appear that way to them?
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
But you see, you have not shown that these things are actually not reflective of the way the world does work.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
i'm saying if it were god up in the heavens who created everything why didn't he give them 1 bit of information that they weren't already aware of? why bother?
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
If you glance above this particular comment, a short summary of what was likely the author's intent is given.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
hahahaha why would a god need to tell people that, they already knew all this stuff, or thought they did anyway.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
The purpose of the beginning passages of Genesis is summarized in the first line: "In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". That is the entirety of these passages' purpose.
You see, at the time that these words were written, it was commonly believed that the stars, Moon, Sun, Earth, etc. were themselves gods. This passage of Genesis is a response to this idea, essentially saying "These are not gods, these are just lights."
ThatChristian 2 years ago
and the stars are not fixated in the sky, sure thats how it appears, thats why they wrote that but again, not actually how it works.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Actually, that is not how it appears. It appears as if the stars were circling the Earth along with the Sun and the Moon. In reality, they are indeed "fixed to the sky".
As a matter of fact, the statement is perfectly and unequivocally true in that the stars are "in the sky" and nowhere else. They are "fixed".
ThatChristian 2 years ago
uhm my statement is that isn't the real explanation for what seperates the day from the night. that isn't even close to how it actually works, and you are saying an allpowerful god told us this.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
How exactly does this description differentiate from "how it actually works."
ThatChristian 2 years ago
lol seriously? you think that description is good enough from an allpowerful god?
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
I am not exactly sure what you mean. Is there some degree of descriptiveness that an "allpowerful" God must attain before what He says is valid?
ThatChristian 2 years ago
your logic works if you don't actually know how the world works..which obviously whatever god wrote that didn't.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
I am not exactly sure what you mean. I have tied each one of your contentions into how the real world actually does work. So I am honestly not sure how my logic is faulty in the way you say it is.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
lmao, no they aren't fixated, they just end back up in the same place at night.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Then could not being "fixed" here refer to "end[ing] back up in the same place at night"? That seems like a valid interpretation to me. But perhaps you see it differently?
ThatChristian 2 years ago
so basically that isn't what seperates it at all and therefore it is wrong...
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Again, I am not sure exactly what you mean.
Day is, by definition, the time when the Sun shines on the earth. Night is, by definition, the time when the Sun does not shine upon the Earth. That certainly sounds like a significant separation to me. But perhaps I simply do not understand what you are getting at.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
right, but the thing is both lights are always shining on the earth at some point. it shows they were too dumb to know that.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Would you mind rephrasing this statement? I am not sure I completely understand your meaning.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
and there are not different 'types' of light from the solar system, there might be if they are man made.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
You see, the problem I have with this objection is that even though the Moon essentially borrows its light from the sun, it is still the Moon itself which is shining the light upon the Earth. This being the case, I don't see that it is inaccurate to refer to the Moon as a sort of "light".
ThatChristian 2 years ago
because what is supposed to be god's word is wrong.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Um, I think you ought to take your own advice and use the reply button. As it is, your responses are a bit confusing. If I were you, I would also consider placing whatever you are replying to in quotes or perhaps brackets.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
do you not agree the passage says the stars are fixated in the sky?
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
No, I agree. The passage does indeed say that.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
because the earth revolves...
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
What exactly is this a reply to?
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Sir, you cannot change something which "was written well over ten centuries ago. You can translate it in varying degrees of accuracy, but you cannot genuinely change it."
i have absolutely no clue what you mean by that, can you not?
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
[] can you not? []
I suppose you could, were you to go back in time. But I think that seems a wee bit infeasible.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
and also it says the stars are fixated in the sky, which they quite obviously aren't. it makes god look like he has about as much knowledge of the universe as a 6 year old child would have today. only that kid would know the stars aren't fixated.
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
[] and also it says the stars are fixated in the sky, which they quite obviously aren't. []
Here, I am afraid you would be wrong. Were the stars not fixated in the sky, at least after a fashion, sailors would be unable to navigate by them. Because of the consistency of the stars, many sailors of times past have avoided starvation. If the stars were not at all "fixated" how are we able to identify constellations?
But you are right, a six-year-old kid might think otherwise.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
and also that statement wouldn't hold true if you were somewhere like alaska.
if god took the time to tell people how he made the world and coundn't give anymore than assumptions that were already around at the time why even bother?
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
[] and also that statement wouldn't hold true if you were somewhere like alaska. []
Actually, they have night and day in Alaska. As a matter of fact, you can essentially go all the way up to the north pole, and you still have night and day. It simply does not follow the normal 24-hour pattern which we are used to.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
uhm because there is only 1 type of light...
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Actually, open up any text on general physics and it will tell you that there are quite a few types of light.
What exactly does this have to do with the current discussion?
ThatChristian 2 years ago
hahahaha you people are so ignorant, how many times are you going to have to change the meaning in the bible for it to make sense?
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
Sir, you cannot change something which was written well over ten centuries ago. You can translate it in varying degrees of accuracy, but you cannot genuinely change it.
And tell me, if the translators of this version were overly concerned with the text appearing to "make sense", would they have translated verse 21 using the term "sea monsters." Personally, I doubt it.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
wow that is amazing how much the bibles vary. they took out all the stuff in the original text that makes what is said absolutely wrong lol. christians are having to change the original texts because it sounds stupid.
the original says god made greater light for the day and lesser light for the night, because people then were too stupid to realize the moon only reflects light.
it also says the stars are fixated in the sky. that's why they thought everything revolved around us. stupid god
adrenacrumb 2 years ago
[] they took out all the stuff in the original text that makes what is said absolutely wrong lol. []
Actually, had you done any research into this particular translation (NASB), you would find that this is one of the handful of versions which actually translate the original texts word-for-word. Most other translations approximate the meanings on a phrase-by-phrase basis. Ask any reputable scholar: this is an excellent translation.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
[] the original says god made greater light for the day and lesser light for the night, because people then were too stupid to realize the moon only reflects light. []
First, that is what this translation says as well: "God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. " - Genesis 1:16 (NASB)
Second, I don't see how this betrays any belief that the Moon actually generates its own light.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
[] it also says the stars are fixated in the sky. that's why they thought everything revolved around us. []
Sir, if the stars are fixated in the sky, how exactly are they supposed to revolve around us?
ThatChristian 2 years ago
sweet mythology animation man. very poetic in a way
THEIMPREGNAT0R 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, kids!
The Bible says the earth is flat.
And that the sun revolves around the earth.
And that humans are made of dirt.
And that snakes, donkeys, and bushes talk.
And that animals appeared AFTER man but BEFORE woman.
Isn't that silly?
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
Comment removed
Imaginefree69 2 years ago
You are 16 years old. May I suggest you go and play with your marbles,untill you have some experience in life. Sorry if it hurts, but I know what I am talking about. I was the same when I was 16 .
Philos2006 3 years ago
Sir, this is a classic example of what is referred to as the "ad hominem" fallacy. Simply put, it does not in any way matter how old I am, you have not invalidated my position (Assuming you actually know my position, which I doubt).
That being said, exactly what sort of experience would I need to acquire before I am qualified to produce an artistic representation of the words of an ancient Jewish text?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
That is exactly the point I think, you don't have to be qualified, anyone can do it. Any smart person and any moron. Anyone who thinks anything can do it.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
Sir, that is insulting, irrelevant, and false.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
You just said "what sort of experience would I need to acquire before I am qualified to produce an artistic representation of an ancient Jewish text"...From that I thought you were trying to make the point that a person need no experience to do such a thing. Sorry if I was insulting.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
My question was not rhetorical. And even if it were, that in no way applies that that "Anyone who thinks anything can do it." I would like to think that the presentation requires some sort of talent, but perhaps I am mistaken?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Yes you are right, only those with some sort of talent will be allowed into heaven and everyone else will be damned.
ASHIUSX 2 years ago
WHAT? I never said that.
What on Earth would make you think that I was in any way implying that in order to attain salvation, one needs the ability to create slides and arrange them into a YouTube video? That is insane.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Im not talking about youtube. I am talking about your understanding of the bible and interpretation of it. You have a perfect understanding of it and most people do not because it takes a certain type of person to get it. It isn't for everyone, because god did not make it for everyone.
ASHIUSX 2 years ago
This video has nothing to do with interpretation, so I don't even see why you would bring that up.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
It is about your correct understanding of the bible. Everyone else is interpreting and is incorrect. And those people are not living there lives right and are going to hell. Because the bible was written only for some of the population, and the rest who cannot understand it is going to hell.
ASHIUSX 2 years ago
[]It is about your correct understanding of the bible.[]
This is not about my understanding of the Bible at all. It is merely an artistic representation of the words themselves. That is all it is. This video intentionally takes no stance on how one is to understand the passage, and does not even take a position on the truth value of the passage.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
If it takes no stance on how to understand the passage then why do you argue with people when they share their opinions on how they understand the passage as if they are wrong?
ASHIUSX 2 years ago
I don't know that I have argued in that vein within this particular comments section. I have spent my time mainly staving off comments like the ones you have posted. I do, certainly, have an opinion on how these passages are meant to be taken and will defend that opinion when the situation calls for it. But as to this particular video, I am leaving my opinion out of it.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
So again, you are showing your correct opinion about the bible and others who are incorrect will either listen to you or go to hell, because you(the one with talent) can interpret the bible correctly for people (without talent) so they may understand it better because it is too complicated for them to understand to begin with and will go to hell otherwise.
ASHIUSX 2 years ago
I am going to be more frank with you than usual: the absurdity of this comment utterly astounds me. How could you even conceivably come to that conclusion based on my statements in this thread?
I never said nor implied that "talent" was required for spiritual salvation. I merely said that some talent was required to create this video.
And for the last time: this is an artistic representation of an ancient text, nothing more, and can be appreciated regardless of one's theological standing.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
It is appreciated no doubt. And I do accept that this is your artistic representation of the text. But that representation holds your opinion of the subject matter. there are many opinions of the bible and of this subject. So, in creating this video you have shown that this is the way you interpret the text, and believe it to be correct, meaning you believe others to be incorrect. meaning you believe those others are going to hell. No?
ASHIUSX 2 years ago
1 - This does not necessarily represent my opinion on how the text is meant to be interpreted.
2 - I do not consider one's opinion of this text to be a factor in how they will spend eternity.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
you read the text and supplement it with images. The images hold your opinion. I've heard people say that the genesis story is about the first single cell organisms splitting. That persons images that they would supplement with would be very different. So yes it does hold your opinion. Maybe if you had just read it without images, it wouldn't.
My opinion is that it is make believe. You do not think that will play a factor in how I will spend eternity?
ASHIUSX 2 years ago
[]The images hold your opinion.[]
Not necessarily.
[]My opinion is that it is make believe. You do not think that will play a factor in how I will spend eternity?[]
I don't see any reason why it would. Salvation, according to Christianity, is not dependent upon one's opinion of the first chapter of Genesis, but upon one's opinion of Jesus of Nazareth.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Oh by "this text" you ment genisis specifically. I though you ment the bible in its whole. My fault.
Well if they don't hold your opinion they are still representing things litterally. You are reading the text, and showing literal pictures to what you are reading.
Is someone supposed to take this anyway they want?
ASHIUSX 2 years ago
Yes, the image are literal representations of the words spoken, but this is not to say that a literal reading of the text represents what actually occurred or what the writer meant to communicate. If someone wrote a poem containing the phrase "And then Came the Grim Reaper", and I illustrated this as a man with a pale face, black robes, and a very large scythe, would that mean that I take the writer's meaning to be literal? No, not necessarily.
ThatChristian 2 years ago
Explaining basic christianity: I am your loving god. Now you shall love me and obey me, or I shall torture you for all eternity.
Philos2006 3 years ago
Really nice work.
donotweep 3 years ago
You don't actually believe in this though, do you?
(:
xxpoisenandkissesxx 3 years ago
What would prompt you to ask this question?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Well, it sounds so ridiculous, I'm wondering, do you see this as a story, or do you actually literly believe this?
xxpoisenandkissesxx 3 years ago
Yes, DonExodus2, Thunderfoot and others are very educated in the theories that they believe. I'm educated in Lord of the Rings but as neat as the story is I just cant make it true.
poolboy22v 3 years ago
Yes but lucky for DonExodus2, Thunderf00t, Ken Miller, and any other scientist, they actually have empirical evidence that strongly confirms evolution... lord of the rings... does not.
Nor does creation according to genesis.
It's a fine story to hear, but unless there's empirical corroborating evidence, it's just a story, or, if you believe in god, an anecdote, either way genesis should never be taken literally or else you're probably a fundamentalist crazy person.
Killua2001 3 years ago
Anyone that can't see design all throughout nature is is as dumb as a brick. You dont see it b/c you either dont want to or your very foolish.
poolboy22v 3 years ago
That would be a typical "argument from personal incredulity" and is an often cited fallacy of creationists. But seeing design does not imply a sentient designer, just as snowflakes come together due to simple chemical properties of water and a nice crystal lattice when freezing, life can come about to look just as "designed" even without a god to design.
God may exist, but creationism is a lackluster argument that stands in contrast to evidence.
Only the fool uses fallacies to support his point.
Killua2001 3 years ago
thats funny
poolboy22v 3 years ago
... what is? Your poorly conceived point?
Killua2001 3 years ago
the fact that there is anything at all is proof of a designer, else why would anything exist at all?
I mean, a big bang???......why?, for what purpose? where did it come from?
whatever, debating is pointless, neither of us is going to change our mind so why waste time and energy typing every day
poolboy22v 3 years ago
Because some people actually enjoy engaging in the art of debate, enjoy finding holes in the opponent's argument and exploiting them like a game of chess, though with people like you who ask philosophical questions about the big bang that science has no answer to (nor need to provide one) and instead substitute god for each question, well, I'll admit it becomes more like playing a child. When you abandon the conventions of logic, you destroy that clever interplay.
Killua2001 3 years ago
Okay. Now what scientific observations and theories support your view of creation? I suggest you check out videos made by guys smarter than me: Donexodus2, Thunderf00t and potholer54. They're very good and educational in this matter.
Perekele 3 years ago
And my view on Creation is what, exactly?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Very hard to glean if you don't actually make an opinion. Perekele is being a bit presumptive by making your video your opinion rather than just a reading of the bible, but since you make no effort to express an opinion, assumptions are all that we can make so far.
scienceminded 3 years ago
Obviously you have little interest in the factual matter, you have said yourself you are agnostic in certain areas like this and the answer is really unimportant, which puts me in the position to ask, why read the creation account without any philosophical or factual opinion on it? It is a good animation, no question, but the content and purpose is not clearly defined. If you care to clarify it's appreciated.
scienceminded 3 years ago
There is quite a bit of controversy surrounding how this text should be taken. So, I decided to forgo the commentary and simply present the text for what it is in my own, somewhat creative way.
The question of exactly how we are to take this writing comes up immediately after the presentation of it, but that is a question I do not now presume to answer with any certainty.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
"Unlikely, maybe, but not beyond any reasonable possibility."
Oh yes, beyond ANY reasonable possibility.
If you don't want to talk about, that's fine, neither do I. I was just curious as to how far you take it.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
[] Oh yes, beyond ANY reasonable possibility. []
You shoulder a very large burden of proof in saying that.
[] If you don't want to talk about, that's fine, neither do I. []
Um... Okay, this brings up the small question as to why you brought it up, but whatever.
[] I was just curious as to how far you take it. []
Let's just say that I am agnostic on certain matters in this area, and am perfectly fine with having my mind changed.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
"Um... Okay, this brings up the small question as to why you brought it up, but whatever."
No it doesn't. I was curious if you were one or not. I have no interest in debating young earth creationists about anything.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
Um... Alright then.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
He just wanted you to make a clear opinion, some people don't have one on certain things, I know of many things of which I have no opinion. It would just be nice if we didn't beat around the bush about these things, you either are, are not, or have no sure opinion on the matter. But people need to ask a bit more nicely.
scienceminded 3 years ago
I may have asked you this before, but...
Are you a young earth creationist?
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
Not necessarily.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
That's quite different than answering "of course not, I'm not stupid".
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago
Yes, it is quite different from that.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
But I mean you must know that a six to ten thousand year old earth is beyond any reasonable possibility, even most unreasonable possibilities.
DickJohnson3434 3 years ago 2
Unlikely, maybe, but not beyond any reasonable possibility. Anyway, the age of the earth is such an unimportant issue, I am happy to concede that to you with no remorse. There are many other things which need to be addressed which are not getting addressed. And no, I am not going to debate you on this, since I am not very well-versed in the science and math behind all of this stuff.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Why did it take him so much time to make everything? And why is the declaration of it being good made after making it. Wouldn't he know it was going to be good before he made it?
ASHIUSX 4 years ago
[] Why did it take him so much time to make everything? []
I don't know. Does it matter?
[] Wouldn't he know it was going to be good before he made it? []
If by "before" you mean within the confines of time and further up in a succession of linear events, then no.
ThatChristian 4 years ago
according to the story he is in the boundaries of liner events. And a victim of time like anyone else. Days pass and he makes different things on different days.
ASHIUSX 4 years ago
[] according to the story he is in the boundaries of liner events. And a victim of time like anyone else. []
This is simply not true.
[] Days pass and he makes different things on different days. []
From the perspective of a being within time, yes, but a being outside of time would look at it differently.
ThatChristian 4 years ago
What different perspective was there at the time?
ASHIUSX 4 years ago
A perspective of one outside time. The six days only work within time while God is outside of it. While it may be six days of time, it is not six days of timelessness.
ThatChristian 4 years ago
So what god does is governed by time but he himself isn't inside it? He does something and to us it looks like a day whereas to him its just all simultaneous?
ASHIUSX 4 years ago
Yeah, I should say that is probably as close as we could get to understanding timelessness.
ThatChristian 4 years ago
Doesn't that kind of take away from his power though if it is restricted to time?
ASHIUSX 4 years ago
Um... no, I don't see why that situation would. Even though God is outside of time, anything He does in this world is going to take effect at some point within time, as this world IS subject to time.
ThatChristian 4 years ago
Since the things he does is affected by time I would say he is confined by it. Like...he can do anything, like flood the world. But it will take some time for him to do it. I don't understand how that doesn't take away a little from his omnipotence.
ASHIUSX 4 years ago
It doesn't take time for Him to "do it" it takes time for it "to happen". Do you see the distinction here?
ThatChristian 4 years ago
If I knock over the first block of a row of a mile long dominoes, I can't claim that the last one is already knocked over (even if from my perspective it is) The person sitting at the end is going to say that I am a slave to the natural way of things and the dominoes have to knock each other consecutively first before I have actually knocked the last one down. So for him he is omnipotent but from our perspective...he is constricted to the same laws of time as we are.
ASHIUSX 4 years ago
But there is no time between when He causes the thing to happen and when it happens.
ThatChristian 4 years ago
Yes there is. It took him a day to make the earth.
ASHIUSX 4 years ago
No... It took the Earth a day to be created. You seemed to be getting it, but I think you lost it. As you pointed out, the best conception we have of timelessness is everything occurring simultaneously. With that in mind, it doesn't matter how long it took the earth to be created since the earth is within time.
ThatChristian 4 years ago
For him is simultaneous. For us it isn't. From our perspective it takes god time to complete something. Since god cannot complete something instantly it binds him to the rules of time. Just because for him it happened instantly doesn't mean that is the case in objective reality.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
[]Since god cannot complete something instantly it binds him to the rules of time.[]
No, whatever He does is within this universe which is within time, so we should expect it to conform to the rules of time.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Of course we should. What makes you think he is outside of time. If things he does are governed by time, what makes him not governed by time.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
The ability to watch the future as if it were no different then looking at the present, the ability to affect change in a certain situation in anticipation for the future, the ability to create time, etc.
Think about it this way. If I were to draw a picture, any lines that I add are going to be two-dimensional and confined to the page, but I myself can look at the whole picture and even set the picture down and walk away if I so choose, because I am not confined to it.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Thats not a very good analogy. Because you would have to have a picture already made from your perspective, whereas from my perspective it had a beginning and end. And in the time (from my perspective) it took you to draw it you had to be at the picture drawing from start to finish.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
I don't see the problem, especially since I am substituting time for space in the analogy.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
the problem is while you say (and swear) it was drawn instantly (or was always drawn). Whereas me and a million other people saw you draw it and saw it took you X amount of time. And in that time you were sitting at the pad.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
Yes, but I am substituting space for time in this analogy.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
It doesn't matter. The problem is perspective.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
No, you clearly misunderstood the analogy. If you didn't, I'm not sure what else to say. Please reread it but think of the space in the analogy as time.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
The analogy doesn't answer my argument. I'm saying from our perspective it took god a day to make the earth. It doesn't matter if in his perspective it was always their or instantaneous. It looks to us as if it took god time to do something.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
Well, then, if that is all, you haven't shown that God is not outside time and therefore you have no point and this discussion is useless.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
You haven't shown that he is outside of time. The evidence (our perspective) is to the contrary so I don't know why you would think he was.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
Well, the fact that He can see the future and act on things with that knowledge. Plus, it is logically necessary, if He created the universe, for Him to be outside of time.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
If he could see the future and act on things with that knowledge there would have been no need to drown to earth (among other things). Thats right...it is necessary to extrapolate a theory out of no evidence whatsoever to explain god.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
I am at a loss. For the first, I don't see the connection. Perhaps you should explain yourself.
For the second I don't even know where on earth that came from.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Our interaction with god is a very reactionary one. He reacts to the earth at the time it is in (sending christ, drowning the earth, the ten commandments,kicking adam and eve out of eden). This is not signs of a being that can see or knows the future.
I was simply making the point that you said "it is logically necessary...ect" And I agree with you, but to me that is just saying "it is logically necessary for me to make up an explanation out of no evidence to explain my god"
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
[]This is not signs of a being that can see or knows the future.[]
Why not?
[]it is logically necessary for me to make up an explanation out of no evidence to explain my god"[]
What are you talking about? Those statements do not make sense.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Because it is reactionary. to say otherwise is to say he has already foreseen it or already reacted to it saying it will always be the way it did and always will be the way it will.
saying it is logically necessary for god to be outside of time is like saying it is logically necessary for Santa Claus to be outside of time because otherwise how could he make it to all those houses in one night. do you see the parallel?
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
[]Because it is reactionary.[]
And if a being knew the future, whether they were reacting to it when it happened or before, it wouldn't matter. Any way you slice it, the being IS going to be reacting to the event.
[]do you see the parallel?[]
No, not really. Santa Claus could easily move at super-speeds yet still be within time. It is not logically necessary for him to be outside of time.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
So god is just waiting for us to move our peices in the chess game of time...and when it is appropriate he moves his?
lol super-speeds or outside of time still prove the same point. Both are made up extrapolations taken from no evidence to explain something otherwise unexplainable.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
[]So god is just waiting for us to move our peices in the chess game of time...and when it is appropriate he moves his?[]
I suppose if you want to put it that way, sure.
[]Both are made up extrapolations taken from no evidence to explain something otherwise unexplainable.[]
I don't know about the Santa Claus thing, but I happen to know that God's being outside of time is not some new-fangled explanation in retreat from modern thinking. This isn't some excuse we've made up, it's doctrine.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
since their is no other way we can play this game then where is our choice? yep this argument again.
So because its doctrine that makes it less made up?
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
[]since their is no other way we can play this game[]
Factual Error. You really lack any concept of what omnipotence would look like, don't you?
[]So because its doctrine that makes it less made up? []
No, it means modern philosophers didn't just invent the idea to fill some logical hole, and it has always been a part of the Christian idea of God.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
I think you are the one who is confused. An omnipotent being would know everything which means you could never do anything different then what he already knew you were going to do. It takes away choice.
Inventing the idea to fill a logical hole is exactly what they did. The question was raised. and without testing it...the clergy made it up to answer the question.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
[]It takes away choice.[]
Sir, you have done nothing but reassert this argument repetitively and it is beginning to get annoying. You haven't provided anything at all which is new, nor have you even attempted to answer my rebuttal to it. You have done absolutely nothing but reassert it, and it simply holds no logical ground whatsoever. Please come up with something new or stop wasting my time.
]The question was raised. and without testing it...the clergy made it up to answer the question.[
ThatChristian 3 years ago
sir? we are so formal now. I fail to see how you have destroyed my argument and arent doing the same thing by repeating yourself.
You: it is logically necissary for god to be outside of time for him to create the universe.
Me: you can make up anything to explain your god. because god can do anything
you: no it is doctrine.
me: then they made it up, but the argument holds
you: stop wasting my time!
me:???
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
That outline of our conversation does help me understand how your mind works. You've mixed and matched different parts of our conversation... as a matter of fact, I am pretty sure some of that is more or less fabricated.
[]I fail to see how you have destroyed my argument []
That isn't a rebuttal. I could care less what you can or cannot see unless you can provide some reasons for it.
[]arent doing the same thing by repeating yourself. []
Well, I am repeating myself. As I hope you...
ThatChristian 3 years ago
recall, it was I that provided the latest line of actual argument. Our previous debates have gone pretty-much as follows -
A - Argument A
TC - Rebuttal A
A - Reassertion of Argument A
TC - Calling out of the reassertion of Argument A
A - Unsupported Assertion of Rebuttal A's inadequacy
TC - Calling out of unsupported assertion of Rebuttal A's inadequacy
Both - Constant back and fourth until TC resolves to address the issue in greater detail in a later video
ThatChristian 3 years ago
A - Reassertion of Argument A upon a later date
TC - referrence to previous episodes of this pattern, pointing out the fact of the constant reassertions and callings out of such as such
And now we are here where I shall tell you that the ball is in your court and as soon as you support your argument, I will be happy to address anything new you have to offer. Okay?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
Tell you what. it isnt an argument. just a statement that I am making for you to think about critically. since god can do anything, you can say anything to explain him when someone calls him into question. you can make anything up like "god is outside of time" or "god is eternal" even subjective views on god that most would consider to be inaccurate like "god created Katrina because he hates blacks" Since anyone can make up anything it calls everything into question. not argument. statement.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
Sir, have you noticed that you have just attempted to weasel your way out of being subject to logic by changing what you said from an "argument" to a "statement" which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. People can get away with saying anything by just saying "This isn't an argument, just a statement for you to think about critically". And what is an argument, may I ask, if not a statement to think about critically?
ThatChristian 3 years ago
lol Alright fine. But you are arguing semantics to get out of talking about the issue at hand.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago
What issue? Apparently you haven't raised an issue which can be addressed, just something for me to think about critically.
ThatChristian 3 years ago
and hopefully you have done so.
ASHIUSX 3 years ago