Spirituality
03 Oct 12
06 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergWhy stop there Agerg. An apple that imparts instant knowledge is a far lesser miracle than most others in the bible.
So then explain, in non-magical terms, how apples (or the fruits from trees of knowledge if you like) can impart instant knowledge of right and wrong to the person that eats them.
The only question is, do miracles (supernatural events) occur or do they not. If they do, then your point is moot. If they don't, then God doesn't exist and game over.
No sense scratching at the surface with this silly apple stuff.
06 Oct 12
6 edits
Originally posted by sumydidFirstly I'm tempted to argue it's a bigger miracle than you acknowledge it to be, and secondly I'm stopping there, for now because this whole exchange was started by Robbie Carrobie's first response to me (with dodging all the way in subsequent posts) in this thread going as follows:
Why stop there Agerg. An apple that imparts instant knowledge is a far lesser miracle than most others in the bible.
The only question is, do miracles (supernatural events) occur or do they not. If they do, then your point is moot. If they don't, then God doesn't exist and game over.
No sense scratching at the surface with this silly apple stuff.
"God did nothing of the sort, you are havering AGAIN. It wasn't magical, it was a
paradise, the word using meaning a park like environment. There is no indication that
snakes talk, it was simply used by Satan as a ventriloquist uses a dummy,
sigh, its no wonder you have lost your way Agers,"
--------------------------
the post he responded to btw was:
"Actually, seeing as "G"od supposedly instigated the introduction of a talking snake (Satan) into the magic garden (such that it would, as "G"od knew it would, talk Adam and Eve into eating a naughty apple) it would appear "G"od is responsible for every death since Adam and Eve.
Satan looks like he got the shaft here!"
which itself was a response to something RC wrote in response to someone else.
I know he's talking bullchit (i.e. he doesn't even believe what he's saying to me) and he knows I know this...if he could actually be honest for once (or put up a respectable fight) then I would be more than happy to back down and move on
06 Oct 12
Originally posted by sumydidOh, and though I'm absolutely certain your "G"od doesn't exist, it's only game over when all the crazies agree with me on this - until that happens it is very much game-on.
Why stop there Agerg. An apple that imparts instant knowledge is a far lesser miracle than most others in the bible.
The only question is, do miracles (supernatural events) occur or do they not. If they do, then your point is moot. If they don't, then God doesn't exist and game over.
No sense scratching at the surface with this silly apple stuff.
06 Oct 12
Originally posted by sumydidI have argued in the past that the word 'supernatural' is incoherent and exists solely for the purpose of rejecting further questioning on a topic.
The only question is, do miracles (supernatural events) occur or do they not.
Do you think 'supernatural' can be made coherent in any way?
What is 'natural' and why would you categorize some events as not natural?
06 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNatural events are dealing with the laws of the physical world. Supernatural events are dealing with the spiritual world and are not restricted by the physical laws. 😏
I have argued in the past that the word 'supernatural' is incoherent and exists solely for the purpose of rejecting further questioning on a topic.
Do you think 'supernatural' can be made coherent in any way?
What is 'natural' and why would you categorize some events as not natural?
06 Oct 12
Originally posted by AgergIt is manifested by such things as turning water into wine, walking on water, multiplying the bread and fish, the virgin birth of the Son of God, etc. We call these miracles because they can not be understood as natural events. Therefore, we can call them supernatural because some spiritual force has produced the result.
Their manifestation in the physical world should be restricted by physical laws.
07 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsThen it doesn't make much sense to be formulating physical laws such as gravity, etc... if they can be contradicted, at will, by "G"od.
It is manifested by such things as turning water into wine, walking on water, multiplying the bread and fish, the virgin birth of the Son of God, etc. We call these miracles because they can not be understood as natural events. Therefore, we can call them supernatural because some spiritual force has produced the result.
Indeed with g = goddidit and t = twinkledust shouldn't we correct, for example, Newton's second law such that it reads something like:
F = ma + gt, or...
F = gmat, or...
F = g + ma =~ g, or... ???
07 Oct 12
Originally posted by AgergI'm confident that it all makes sense to God, since He created all with such laws. 😏
Then it doesn't make much sense to be formulating physical laws such as gravity, etc... if they can be contradicted, at will, by "G"od.
Indeed with g = goddidit and t = twinkledust shouldn't we correct, for example, Newton's second law such that it reads something like:
F = ma + gt, or...
F = gmat, or...
F = g + ma =~ g, or... ???
07 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobas i stated before all materialists read from the same cook book and not having
********BUMP FOR ROBBIE**********
I was polite enough to answer your question will you answer mine? Do you accept that the genetic evidence contradicts your literal account of Genesis?
considered your so called, 'genetic evidence', i cannot possibly state why there is a
discrepancy. Suffice to say that all empirical evidence points to the fact that civilisation
and recorded history do not go back tens of thousands of years, but a few thousand, in
harmony with the Genesis account and your reasons or in my opinion 'excuses', for this
disparity are less then convincing.
07 Oct 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei cannot possibly state why there is a discrepancy.
as i stated before all materialists read from the same cook book and not having
considered your so called, 'genetic evidence', i cannot possibly state why there is a
discrepancy. Suffice to say that all empirical evidence points to the fact that civilisation
and recorded history do not go back tens of thousands of years, but a few thousand, in ...[text shortened]... and your reasons or in my opinion 'excuses', for this
disparity are less then convincing.
So that's a no then?