Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster Page: <<   < prev  44 45 46 [47] 48   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/23/2017 4:30:59 AM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Jesus man, this "god"you proclaim is obviously a complete fuck up, your every explanation is "Well he doesn't know what the fuck he is doing and has no actual power, but it is all our fault.

Fucking pathetic, but exactly the sad ridiculous bullshit explanations I expected. They are the same empty meaningless excuses they gave me in catechism class back in grade school.

My explanation was not; "Well he doesn't know what the fuck he is doing and has no actual power, but it is all our fault", not even close. But then I pretty much knew this would be your reaction no matter what I said.

What I actually was saying is that God knows exactly what he's doing, he's allowing us to have and use "Free Will" and that it is not his fault but ours if we misuse that precious gift. Also that he is powerful enough to correct that misuse without having to take "Free Will" away from us even though the majority of mankind continues to misuse that "Free Will" to its detriment.

I thought the theodicy dodge was out of fashion these days?

Perhaps you would like to elucidate? Maybe a little bit about why you think it is a "dodge"?

Because it's a branch of religious philosophy that only exists in order to make excuses for God, most of which are more than a little unconvincing. Why else?

Okay, you know what theodicy means, Great!

But just saying; "I thought the theodicy dodge was out of fashion these days?", is just a little more erudite way of saying; "I think what you are saying is stupid" which is just an opinion and is not in any way an attempt at refutation of what has been said.

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 921
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/23/2017 4:43:53 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Jesus man, this "god"you proclaim is obviously a complete fuck up, your every explanation is "Well he doesn't know what the fuck he is doing and has no actual power, but it is all our fault.

Fucking pathetic, but exactly the sad ridiculous bullshit explanations I expected. They are the same empty meaningless excuses they gave me in catechism class back in grade school.

My explanation was not; "Well he doesn't know what the fuck he is doing and has no actual power, but it is all our fault", not even close. But then I pretty much knew this would be your reaction no matter what I said.

What I actually was saying is that God knows exactly what he's doing, he's allowing us to have and use "Free Will" and that it is not his fault but ours if we misuse that precious gift. Also that he is powerful enough to correct that misuse without having to take "Free Will" away from us even though the majority of mankind continues to misuse that "Free Will" to its detriment.

I thought the theodicy dodge was out of fashion these days?

Perhaps you would like to elucidate? Maybe a little bit about why you think it is a "dodge"?

Because it's a branch of religious philosophy that only exists in order to make excuses for God, most of which are more than a little unconvincing. Why else?

Okay, you know what theodicy means, Great!

But just saying; "I thought the theodicy dodge was out of fashion these days?", is just a little more erudite way of saying; "I think what you are saying is stupid" which is just an opinion and is not in any way an attempt at refutation of what has been said.

I could take the arguments about the bad stuff in the world being there purely to enable free will as a moral test a lot more seriously if the notions of us having free will and God being omnipotent weren't mutually exclusive.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 922
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/23/2017 5:21:29 AM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline
quote:

he's allowing us to have and use "Free Will" and that it is not his fault but ours if we misuse that precious gift.

You have yet to reconcile free will with the supposed omniscience of the obscenity you worship. As per usual, you are dodging the question with vague, meaningless, and utterly obvious attempts at bafflegab.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 923
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/23/2017 7:35:17 AM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline
<quote>
I don't think Darwin ever said that life began from a lightning bolt hitting a pocket of mud which just happened to be full of amino acids by chance. Similarly, I'd bet the old testimont left a few begats out of the story as not being relevant to the story.
</quote>

The lightning bolt and pocket of mud narrative was an ignorant journalist's take on the Miller experiments back in 1958.

If you have a reducing atmosphere of Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammonia; amino acids (building blocks of proteins) will naturally form in water solution. If you stimulate combination with an electrical discharge; preon bodies will form. Later studies even worked up to viruses.

If you consider a virus a form of life; yes, life can spontaneously start from lightning hitting a solution of amino acids. It is spontaneous formation of DNA Chains.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/14/5526.long

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 924
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/23/2017 9:51:07 AM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

<quote>
I don't think Darwin ever said that life began from a lightning bolt hitting a pocket of mud which just happened to be full of amino acids by chance. Similarly, I'd bet the old testimont left a few begats out of the story as not being relevant to the story.
</quote>

The lightning bolt and pocket of mud narrative was an ignorant journalist's take on the Miller experiments back in 1958.

If you have a reducing atmosphere of Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammonia; amino acids (building blocks of proteins) will naturally form in water solution. If you stimulate combination with an electrical discharge; preon bodies will form. Later studies even worked up to viruses.

If you consider a virus a form of life; yes, life can spontaneously start from lightning hitting a solution of amino acids. It is spontaneous formation of DNA Chains.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/14/5526.long

Read your link. Didn't see anything about viruses. I'd imagine that this study, which was from the 1950's would have sparked (no pun intended) interest that would have generated a great deal of research over the last seventy years. Since you seem to have seen some of that research, I'll ask you to provide links.

Interesting however.

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 925
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/23/2017 10:20:13 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10540
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

so you might get mad at him.

I am not mad at him, I don't get mad at fictional characters.


So what/who are you mad at?

Those who tell me I need to have a savior, those that denigrate with such as, I lead a desolate and hateful life because I feel I don't need a savior. Those that continue to contend that I (and others) are somehow morally or socially defective because I/we are non-believers.

That's who and what they do that at times...makes me mad. In fact, in my lifetime, it is the believers that get mad at me for...not believing, just like them.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 926
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/23/2017 12:13:15 PM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Those that continue to contend that I (and others) are somehow morally or socially defective because I/we are non-believers.

Good luck with that one: whenever it's raised in one of these threads, it gets ignored the way creationists ignore the fossil record...

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 927
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/23/2017 1:13:24 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

<quote>
I don't think Darwin ever said that life began from a lightning bolt hitting a pocket of mud which just happened to be full of amino acids by chance. Similarly, I'd bet the old testimont left a few begats out of the story as not being relevant to the story.
</quote>

The lightning bolt and pocket of mud narrative was an ignorant journalist's take on the Miller experiments back in 1958.

If you have a reducing atmosphere of Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammonia; amino acids (building blocks of proteins) will naturally form in water solution. If you stimulate combination with an electrical discharge; preon bodies will form. Later studies even worked up to viruses.

If you consider a virus a form of life; yes, life can spontaneously start from lightning hitting a solution of amino acids. It is spontaneous formation of DNA Chains.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/14/5526.long

Read your link. Didn't see anything about viruses. I'd imagine that this study, which was from the 1950's would have sparked (no pun intended) interest that would have generated a great deal of research over the last seventy years. Since you seem to have seen some of that research, I'll ask you to provide links.

Interesting however.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

_____________________________

vML

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 928
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/23/2017 1:41:04 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

<quote>
I don't think Darwin ever said that life began from a lightning bolt hitting a pocket of mud which just happened to be full of amino acids by chance. Similarly, I'd bet the old testimont left a few begats out of the story as not being relevant to the story.
</quote>

The lightning bolt and pocket of mud narrative was an ignorant journalist's take on the Miller experiments back in 1958.

If you have a reducing atmosphere of Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammonia; amino acids (building blocks of proteins) will naturally form in water solution. If you stimulate combination with an electrical discharge; preon bodies will form. Later studies even worked up to viruses.

If you consider a virus a form of life; yes, life can spontaneously start from lightning hitting a solution of amino acids. It is spontaneous formation of DNA Chains.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/14/5526.long

Read your link. Didn't see anything about viruses. I'd imagine that this study, which was from the 1950's would have sparked (no pun intended) interest that would have generated a great deal of research over the last seventy years. Since you seem to have seen some of that research, I'll ask you to provide links.

Interesting however.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Thx VML. I skimmed it. I'll look closer and see if it has a link to what I want. As I can understand the chemistry talk in the actual studies, I was hoping to see a link to where they zapped viruses into existence from primordial soup that MercTech was talking about.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 929
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/23/2017 2:41:31 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
"Historic 'Primordial Soup' Study Yields New Data, But Not New Answers"

quote:

When Stanley Miller passed away in 2007, his vials from the famous Miller-Urey origin of life experiments went to marine chemist Jeffrey Bada. Newer, more sensitive techniques were used on the old residue to detect additional amino acids, a discovery that one commentator suggested "might change our view about the chemical evolution of life."1

However, a separate study showed that the particular amino acids used in cells are extraordinarily nonrandom. How do these findings together relate to the question of how the first cell arrived on planet earth?

Many evolutionists believe that life originated in a "primordial soup" of organic molecules. In their 1950s experiments, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tried to recreate the supposed chemical origins of life by firing sparks into glass chambers filled with gases chosen because each contributed the necessary elements. The resultant tar-like goo had trace amounts of some amino acids, the building blocks of life, so newspaper headlines proclaimed that the scientists were very close to forming life in a test tube.

After he inherited the samples collected during the experiments, Bada and colleagues examined vials from an experiment involving hydrogen sulfide and found "a wide diversity of amino acids that had never been reported before." In an interview with National Public Radio, Bada enthused:

quote:

I think it demonstrates that it's really easy to make key biomolecules like amino acids. And this then provides an inventory of raw material to set the stage for further reactions that lead to more complexity and eventually into something that would—we could call a living entity.


But despite Bada's optimistic assessment of the study's results, the fact is that after decades of experiments, scientists are no closer to creating life in the lab than Miller and Urey were in the 1950s.

Individual amino acids are linked to form chains called proteins, which perform most of the required cellular tasks. Each amino acid has a central carbon atom from which four other chemical parts radiate. These include a hydrogen atom, the nitrogen atom of an "amine" group, a carbon atom from a "carboxyl" group, and a fourth unspecified atom or group of atoms.

It is that fourth unspecified position that distinguishes the different amino acids. Whereas hundreds of different amino acids could potentially be assembled, only 20 are used in the vast majority of proteins in living things.

Trace amounts of just a few of those 20 biologically relevant amino acids were originally known in the Miller-Urey samples. The new analysis of the samples revealed "a total of 23 amino acids,"2 including 10 found in living things and 13 hodgepodge amino acids.

But what quantities of these acids were formed by spontaneous sparking? The amounts of detected amino acids were so miniscule that they were not reported using standard units of chemical concentration: molar concentration, or molarity. Instead, they were reported in amounts relative to other amino acids in the mixture, and even so they were plotted on a logarithmic scale so that the chemical traces could be visualized on the same graph as the tiniest of traces.2

In 2008, Jeffrey Bada published a similar analysis of Miller-Urey vials without hydrogen sulfide.3 In that article, published in the journal Science, the authors described their reliance on a machine that could detect miniscule amounts in "the sub-picomolar level."4 In any origin of life by chance scenario, how did enough amino acids ever find one another amidst the sea of random chemicals?

In order to assemble a car, all the required parts have to be brought to the assembly line, not strewn all over the neighborhood. Similarly, no known natural mechanism gathers amino acids into close proximity. Rather, nature tends to disperse such chemicals over time.

But beyond the problem of low concentration of ingredients is that of having the right ingredients. A separate study analyzed the "choice," from among the possible hundreds, of amino acids used in living systems.5 The researchers found that the 20 essential amino acids have the widest range of chemical attributes, such as charge, hydrophobicity, and size. These particular 20 amino acid building blocks therefore maximize the potential for proteins to exhibit the widest possible range of variations in charge, hydrophobicity, and size—features they need in order to perform their jobs and make biological life possible.

If random processes were responsible for the "choice" of amino acids used in living things, then they all might have similar sizes, charges, and hydrophobic properties—like the amino acids formed in the Miller-Urey experiments.

But supplying uniform amino acids limits the range of structures that could be built with them, just like toy blocks of the same sizes and shapes would limit what a child could build.

Thus, according to the latest research, an intelligent agent was required to choose just the right set of building blocks for proteins. And a powerful agent was required to bring sufficient quantities of those building blocks together into one place to form living cells. Random nature doesn't fit either description, but the God of the Bible does.


http://www.icr.org/article/historic-primordial-soup-study-yields/

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 930
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/23/2017 6:15:59 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

he's allowing us to have and use "Free Will" and that it is not his fault but ours if we misuse that precious gift.

You have yet to reconcile free will with the supposed omniscience of the obscenity you worship. As per usual, you are dodging the question with vague, meaningless, and utterly obvious attempts at bafflegab.

You continue to be rude and lie about what I have answered or not. Add to that, that you don't even seem to have the rudimentary ability to carry on a discussion, let alone use logic and reason and that makes you a troll. So, I will no longer even acknowledge you exist.
So long.

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 931
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/23/2017 6:17:45 PM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
I could take the arguments about the bad stuff in the world being there purely to enable free will as a moral test a lot more seriously if the notions of us having free will and God being omnipotent weren't mutually exclusive.
This is what I have already said about "omniscience vs free will" in post Post #: 669, perhaps you missed it.

"Have you ever had the "omniscience vs free will" discussion before?

Many define omniscience like you have; that God "supposedly knows everything, and has always known everything, therefore, he knows what you are going to do before you do it, Hell, he knew exactly what you were going to do at every stage of your life before you were even born" and that God being omniscient would have known "from before creation exactly who Ted Bundy would kill, he knew before creation that Hitler would be gassing Jews, and that Stalin would starve millions, he knew it was all going to happen right from the get go, and yet he allowed it to happen". This definition seems to cause a paradox; that there is no such thing as free will and that from the moment of Creation, the future of everything was already laid out until the "end of the universe" and thus even God can't change it even if he wanted to and thus even God doesn't have free will once the universe was put in motion.


Myself, I kind of like the feeling that I have free will, I know that doesn’t make it so but it does mean that I have thought about alternatives to predestination.

I start with what omniscient might mean.

God is also omnipotent and yet he can use as much or as little of his power as is needed. Much like we can pick up something fragile without crushing it even though we have the power to do so, God does not use more of his omnipotence than is necessary.

What if omniscience is similar and it means that God doesn’t necessarily know everything but has the ability to know everything and can use as much or as little of that ability as he wants and with the desire to give mankind the gift of free will he has decided to limit his omniscience where it conflicts with free will?"


(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 932
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/23/2017 10:32:37 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline
quote:

What if omniscience is similar and it means that God doesn’t necessarily know everything

That's not what the word means.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 933
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/23/2017 10:35:33 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

he's allowing us to have and use "Free Will" and that it is not his fault but ours if we misuse that precious gift.

You have yet to reconcile free will with the supposed omniscience of the obscenity you worship. As per usual, you are dodging the question with vague, meaningless, and utterly obvious attempts at bafflegab.

You continue to be rude and lie about what I have answered or not. Add to that, that you don't even seem to have the rudimentary ability to carry on a discussion, let alone use logic and reason and that makes you a troll. So, I will no longer even acknowledge you exist.
So long.

I accept your surrender

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 934
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/24/2017 3:29:38 AM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline
And for those who are hung up on what the word "omniscience" "means", here is a requote from my post at 901:
quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles Post #: 901
No, I just don't limit God to what you think he should be and I'm sure that God doesn't limit himself to your understanding of what omniscience is either.
Also if God is the God of the Bible, I can assure you that the word "omniscience" appears no where in the Bible.

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 935
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/24/2017 3:50:14 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
I could take the arguments about the bad stuff in the world being there purely to enable free will as a moral test a lot more seriously if the notions of us having free will and God being omnipotent weren't mutually exclusive.
This is what I have already said about "omniscience vs free will" in post Post #: 669, perhaps you missed it.

"Have you ever had the "omniscience vs free will" discussion before?

Many define omniscience like you have; that God "supposedly knows everything, and has always known everything, therefore, he knows what you are going to do before you do it, Hell, he knew exactly what you were going to do at every stage of your life before you were even born" and that God being omniscient would have known "from before creation exactly who Ted Bundy would kill, he knew before creation that Hitler would be gassing Jews, and that Stalin would starve millions, he knew it was all going to happen right from the get go, and yet he allowed it to happen". This definition seems to cause a paradox; that there is no such thing as free will and that from the moment of Creation, the future of everything was already laid out until the "end of the universe" and thus even God can't change it even if he wanted to and thus even God doesn't have free will once the universe was put in motion.


Myself, I kind of like the feeling that I have free will, I know that doesn’t make it so but it does mean that I have thought about alternatives to predestination.

I start with what omniscient might mean.

God is also omnipotent and yet he can use as much or as little of his power as is needed. Much like we can pick up something fragile without crushing it even though we have the power to do so, God does not use more of his omnipotence than is necessary.

What if omniscience is similar and it means that God doesn’t necessarily know everything but has the ability to know everything and can use as much or as little of that ability as he wants and with the desire to give mankind the gift of free will he has decided to limit his omniscience where it conflicts with free will?"



Omniscience has nothing to do with free will, you're thinking of omnipotence. I think the argument that God isn't omnipotent when it suits him not to accept responsibility for something was originally Saint Augustine's: it's certainly been around long enough that Voltaire wrote a whole novel in order to ridicule it.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 936
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/24/2017 4:19:56 AM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
I could take the arguments about the bad stuff in the world being there purely to enable free will as a moral test a lot more seriously if the notions of us having free will and God being omnipotent weren't mutually exclusive.
This is what I have already said about "omniscience vs free will" in post Post #: 669, perhaps you missed it.

"Have you ever had the "omniscience vs free will" discussion before?

Many define omniscience like you have; that God "supposedly knows everything, and has always known everything, therefore, he knows what you are going to do before you do it, Hell, he knew exactly what you were going to do at every stage of your life before you were even born" and that God being omniscient would have known "from before creation exactly who Ted Bundy would kill, he knew before creation that Hitler would be gassing Jews, and that Stalin would starve millions, he knew it was all going to happen right from the get go, and yet he allowed it to happen". This definition seems to cause a paradox; that there is no such thing as free will and that from the moment of Creation, the future of everything was already laid out until the "end of the universe" and thus even God can't change it even if he wanted to and thus even God doesn't have free will once the universe was put in motion.


Myself, I kind of like the feeling that I have free will, I know that doesn’t make it so but it does mean that I have thought about alternatives to predestination.

I start with what omniscient might mean.

God is also omnipotent and yet he can use as much or as little of his power as is needed. Much like we can pick up something fragile without crushing it even though we have the power to do so, God does not use more of his omnipotence than is necessary.

What if omniscience is similar and it means that God doesn’t necessarily know everything but has the ability to know everything and can use as much or as little of that ability as he wants and with the desire to give mankind the gift of free will he has decided to limit his omniscience where it conflicts with free will?"



Omniscience has nothing to do with free will, you're thinking of omnipotence. I think the argument that God isn't omnipotent when it suits him not to accept responsibility for something was originally Saint Augustine's: it's certainly been around long enough that Voltaire wrote a whole novel in order to ridicule it.

What?

Omnipotence means all powerful and would have little to do with "Free Will".

Omniscience means all knowing and has quite a bit to do with "Free Will", because if God knows you are going to do something before you do it, then you no longer have any "Free Will" in the matter. So, God would have to limit his foreknowledge or omniscience in order for us to have "Free Will".

Perhaps you could explain why you think we should be talking about Omnipotence/"Free Will" rather than Omniscience/"Free Will".

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 937
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/24/2017 4:23:08 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline
Because if anything else in existence has free will, then God cannot possibly be omnipotent.
Hence all of the stuff people like Augustine and Leibniz tied themselves into pretzels making excuses for Him.
Are you sure you've read around this?

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 938
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/24/2017 4:38:55 AM   
Milesnmiles


Posts: 1349
Joined: 12/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Because if anything else in existence has free will, then God cannot possibly be omnipotent.
Hence all of the stuff people like Augustine and Leibniz tied themselves into pretzels making excuses for Him.
Are you sure you've read around this?

Sorry, I still don't see the connection that all powerful has to do with free will, all knowing yes, all powerful no.

(in reply to WhoreMods)
Profile   Post #: 939
RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster - 8/24/2017 4:41:03 AM   
WhoreMods


Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Because if anything else in existence has free will, then God cannot possibly be omnipotent.
Hence all of the stuff people like Augustine and Leibniz tied themselves into pretzels making excuses for Him.
Are you sure you've read around this?

Sorry, I still don't see the connection that all powerful has to do with free will, all knowing yes, all powerful no.

Something being all powerful precludes anything else having free will, because if anything else has free will than its power over that is limited.
Simple, no?

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to Milesnmiles)
Profile   Post #: 940
Page:   <<   < prev  44 45 46 [47] 48   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Creationist Belief Falling into the Dumpster Page: <<   < prev  44 45 46 [47] 48   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.297