Is God the Creator of reality?

Originally posted by Coletti
I noticed you did not use the logical definition of argument.

logical statements with conclusion: a unit of reasoning moving from premises that provide evidence to a conclusion

Propositions are statements.

Propositions are the building blocks of arguments.

There are two kinds of propositions or statements:
1) premises
2) conclusi ...[text shortened]... a syllogism to be a valid argument, the conclusion must be logically implied by the premises.

Address the validity of the definition of argument, in the context I used the word or stiffle yourself.

Originally posted by LemonJello
i see what you are saying.

but how do you know that adam and eve could have NOT eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? after all, the bible repeatedly seems to say that man, by his very nature, cannot help but commit sins. how do you know that it would have been possible that adam and eve could have avoided eating the forbidden fruit?
...[text shortened]... ecause of our sinful nature??

i still don't think the passage implies that free will exists.

They had a choice, they could have eaten from The Tree Of Life, which was one of the other choices. Yes THE BIBLE clearly states the evil of the nature of man. But is that not after eating from The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good and Evil. When you have a choice you can avoid the wrong one.
The point really is though Man had a choice. Man could have obeyed what GOD had said. Making the wrong choice is the reason for the state of man today.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
They had a choice, they could have eaten from The Tree Of Life, which was one of the other choices. Yes THE BIBLE clearly states the evil of the nature of man. But is that not after eating from The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good and Evil. When you have a choice you can avoid the wrong one.
The point really is though Man had a choice. Man could have obeyed what GOD had said. Making the wrong choice is the reason for the state of man today.

Thats plain superstitious hogwash.

Originally posted by Coletti
I agree with you here. My particular point was that 90% of the time, when people say something exist or does not exist, they are really trying to say that something is true or false as defined, or that something does not have empirical evidence.

Unicorns exist - maybe true or false

Unicorns are fictional animals - is true.
Unicorn are empirical animals - is false.

Unicorns-----
DEUTERONOMY 33:7
NUMBERS 23:22
24:6
JOB 39:9,10
PSALMS 29:6
92:10
22:21
ISAIAH 34:7
Because every word of THE WORD OF GOD, is true, there were unicorns.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Thats plain superstitious hogwash.

WHY

Originally posted by blindfaith101
WHY

WHY is part of what you should have asked before you fell for that nonsense , hook ,line and sinker.

Originally posted by frogstomp
WHY is part of what you should have asked before you fell for that nonsense , hook ,line and sinker.

Which means that you really HAVE no reason, for how you believe.I do have a reason.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
Unicorns-----
DEUTERONOMY 33:7
NUMBERS 23:22
24:6
JOB 39:9,10
PSALMS 29:6
92:10
22:21
ISAIAH 34:7
Because every word of THE WORD OF GOD, is true, there were unicorns.

The word is the Hebrew re'êm, and it's meaning is not exact. Most translations use the term "wild ox." The bible does not describe the animal, only that it had horns.

The word "creation" gets muddled because some people here speak of it as a proper noun, "Creation," the 6-day handiwork of Yahweh. I try to leave open the possibility of other real things existing that are not part of this particular Creation.

I think I'm trying to establish that reality is a more fundamental presupposition than God.

The ultimate task is to get a few particular pe ...[text shortened]... ng the creator of reality or about God being reality itself to think about their statements.
[/b]

If you are trying to establish a set of reality to the exclusion of anything else as not real, I think you are on a head-on collision course with the paradox. Since Russell found that no set contains all subsets and itself, then there must be sets in existence outside of the reality set (which doesn't seem to make much sense), or reality is not contained within its own set (which would imply that the set of reality we created is not real). So, the answer to your question is beyond me, but I would conclude that reality cannot be made into a set. Perhaps you have reached the limits of set theory.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
Which means that you really HAVE no reason, for how you believe.I do have a reason.

Yes your reason is idiocy.
and you haven't a clue what I believe.

Get this in your head bf: Christians don't have to cling to Sumerian mythology. If you understood the word of the Kingdom you wouldn't be looking so dumb in here day after day.

Originally posted by Coletti
The word is the Hebrew re'êm, and it's meaning is not exact. Most translations use the term "wild ox." The bible does not describe the animal, only that it had horns.

which translations?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Yes your reason is idiotcy.
and you haven't a clue what I believe.

you just stated it. Seems as if when someone does not agree with you you call them a name. We can say for sure that you donot believe in THE MOST HIGH GOD.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
you just stated it. Seems as if when someone does not agree with you you call them a name. We can say for sure that you donot believe in THE MOST HIGH GOD.

That BS wont work with me bf,,, theres a difference between an adjective and a noun.
I do NOT believe that Genesis represents anything from God, period.

Iff (math term) you begin to understand the word of the Kingdom will you begin to discard the Sumerian gods.

Originally posted by frogstomp
That BS wont work with me bf,,, theres a difference between an adjective and a noun.
I do NOT believe that Genesis represents anything from God, period.

Iff (math term) you begin to understand the word of the Kingdom will you begin to discard the Sumerian gods.

matters not you are convicted by your own words.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
They had a choice, they could have eaten from The Tree Of Life, which was one of the other choices. Yes THE BIBLE clearly states the evil of the nature of man. But is that not after eating from The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good and Evil. When you have a choice you can avoid the wrong one.
The point really is though Man had a choice. Man could have obeyed what GOD had said. Making the wrong choice is the reason for the state of man today.

blindfaith,

i have read the passage several times, and i still don't think it demonstrates explicitly that we have free will.

however, i understand your position and i would say that it is a reasonable interpretation, but by no means the only one. regardless, i do think i see where you are coming from.

BTW, are there any other passages from the bible that you think speak about the existence of free will?