Reply personal responsibility is a crock: here is why

Post Reply New Topic

I already answered that. Come back after you understand what logical possibility means. Good day.

AngelRho, are you dropping acid or smoking any doobies. You've given no answers at all.

Me: How do you know this man is a bachelor?

AngelRho: Because he is not married.

Me: How do you know he is not married?

AngelRho: Because he is a bachelor.

Me: How do we know that this man is a bachelor and is not married?

AngelRho: Because, it would not be logically possible for a man to be both a bachelor and married at the same time. A contradiction can't happen because two things can't be and not be at the same time in the same instance.

Me: **Scratches head and thinks to himself WTF**

Me: How do we know that this man is married or not married at all? How do we determine this?

AngelRho: Because it is self-evident that this man is not married since he is a bachelor. I've already answered your question about not being married and being a bachelor.

AngelRho, this is the gist of our conversation. All you're doing is debating semantics with me not the substance of the question itself. Let's cut the s**t AngelRho, do some thinking and answer the f*****g question. How can any entity that has no beginning or no end exist in anyway, shape or form?

Answer the f*****g question or admit you don't know what your talking and everything you have said is a sham.

Straw man.

---

'Straw Man', Otherwise Known in 'Think'

As 'Jesus' What Many Folks Set in Front

of God/Nature As Idol As They Are Afraid to

FACE FACTS THAT NATURE IS FREE AND GOD

AND WE ARE TOO JUST F IN COMMON EVERY DAY FEELSENSE

The Rest of the Animals Enjoy As Doing Verb Without Idols

Of Abstract Constructed Words Hiding Nature God Same As Metaphor NoW too...

It is what it is Now

It's done

Best with

Love For those

Who Feel and Sense

Every Day Now Bliss of Love

Love Is Enough When God Is

Love The Spirit God For Metaphor

Is Real Within As Feeling And Sensing Love

Eternally Now To Give And Share Freely Caring

Loving the Rest of Nature With Least Harm in

Balance

i Stood On the Grounds of 'Church' 'SunDay'

Listening to the Birds of Nature Sing God Free

As Nature is God Free Meanwhile A Priest Attempting

to Pull A Fast And 'Innocent' 'Trump Ploy' That 'Wisdom'

Is 'Obedience' Like MaKinG Thousands of YearS Old Free Verse Poetry

All Copied And Pasted Together With Stories Selected that Corroborate

Other Stories And Calling that Prophecies Fulfilled Only the Most Ignorant

of Human

Beings

Will Believe

'God' Is A 'Straw Man'

of A Book; Just Words; Just

Idols; 'Personal Responsibility' is

Breathing Love is Bliss And That's

God Enough God When We Experience
IT For Real Now ALL NATURALLY WITH NO WORDS AT ALL...

True Really Breathing is Free too; We May 'TeLL' It's Really 'Real' When

We Don't Have to 'Word Think';

ALL WORDS

ARE

'STRAW

MEN' WHEN

IT COMES TO

ESSENCE OF WHAT

IS REAL LOVING SOUL NOW BEST

As Far As i Feel and Sense At Least For Real LOVE i AM...

Love Is NoW EternAlly So When Love Breathes Past and Future

Is Irrelevant As 'They' Do Not

'Really' Exist...

No Different

Than Words

R E A L L Y

According to

Neuroscience

And Quantum

Mechanics No

Different than Time,

Distance, Space, And Matter

Essence Eternally Now Feeling Sensing What Is or 'Not'...

Wind Has No Responsibility And Neither Do I When i Wind...

---

Ok, but there’s what I said and what I didn’t say. My point was specifically about the logical possibility of God as eternal. I never said that the eternal nature of God was self evident, just that the logical possibility that “God is eternal” does exist. Cube asked why it was God could not have a beginning and still be eternal, to which I replied that it is not logically possible...God cannot be both eternal and not eternal. Then he wants evidence for something that is a logical possibility. Once he becomes frustrated because he doesn’t understand logical possibility, he hits me with the whole married/bachelor thing, which isn’t even close to what I said.

How someone may know if someone is married or not is irrelevant. There are ways one could find whether someone is married, and there are definitions of both. Does a guy meet the qualifications for either? If so, then that’s what he is. And since the two are opposites, he cannot be both at the same time in the same sense.

Same question, how does one know that God is eternal? It’s a problem of definition. What are the qualifications for being God? Part of what defines God is eternal nature. If you find something that had a beginning, then NOT GOD. Something that began to exist could only have been created. If you believe you found a supernatural, creative being that began to exist, you could give it a name and call it “God,” but then we’re right back to where we started. If everything that began to exist is created, who created “God”? Logically, you must conclude that “God”-in-quotation-marks was created by someone who was created by someone who... Now you have a conflict with the universe, namely that we already know that something cannot come from nothing. It’s not possible for an endless chain of creation to exist. There cannot be “infinite gods” in causal succession. It’s much simpler and internally consistent to ascribe to “gods” a single transcendent personality and purpose that possesses the power to create something ex nihilo.

Typically, calls for evidence and “proof” refer to physical evidence and materialistic proof. Obviously there are problems with that concerning God and who God is. Exactly how do you intend to physically prove a transcendent being? It doesn’t work that way. Part of the problem of realism is the denial of anything beyond the physical world. It is assumed that such things cannot exist. First of all, if someone already knows God exists, isn’t the materialist simply assuming something that would require proof for the believer to stop believing? Second, doesn’t this just deny even the mere logical possibility that God exists? If so, the material realist is guilty of faulty reasoning.

The believer starts from a position that admits that the mind is corrupted by sin nature and cannot be trusted. The reliability of the mind is easily observable, and the human mind itself can observe this. In order to make truth claims, the mind has to be clear. Faith is required to understand that God can renew the mind and is not deceiving it, something that can be tested to see if it proves trustworthy. Once someone attains certainty in knowledge through faith, one can draw reliable conclusions about the rest of the world. But that starts with the single assumption that knowledge and truth come from God and that indeed it is God who is speaking truth to you. Is that not circular reasoning? Sure, but the end result is certain and reliable knowledge. The opposite is “nothing is certain, not even this statement.” It is logically absurd. The only conclusion a believer CAN draw is God’s role and creation along with His eternal nature, and that draws from how God reveals Himself to the believer through His creation.

Another glaring problem with the “evidence” problem is there can never be universal agreement on what constitutes “evidence” or “proof”. If evidence and proof are required for EVERY argument, then how may one provide evidence and proof that evidence and proof themselves are required? Again, this assuming something that itself must be proven, which CANNOT be done outside of itself. It’s not even logically possible to do so. So the problem becomes at which point is something accepted as proof? If someone “proves” God, then the proof requires proof, and the proof of the proof requires proof, and so on. In order to make an argument that proves God, one is then required to accept the premise that God does not exist, such as with the realist, and only THEN proceed to prove that what is assumed not to exist actually does. If a believer ALREADY KNOWS that God exists, why should he be bothered to assume that God doesn’t? If you start from the position of the non-existence of something and argue contrary to your own assumption, the argument is already defeated. If an opponent is unwilling to accept the premise that God exists, why should a believer be any more willing to accept the premise that God doesn’t?

The conclusion is ALL arguments become a matter of faith. No believer can be called upon to prove God exists. Why? Because proof requires the unreasonable acceptance of a false premise. No believer can be called upon to defend God’s actions. Why? Because of God’s sovereignty, God does not depend on anyone to defend Him. Attempting to do so necessarily means God has done something wrong that needs defending. There ARE ideas ABOUT God that require defending because those ideas are human ideas—free will versus determinism, Catholicism vs. Protestantism, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, personal experiences, etc. Why do YOU choose to believe? Those aren’t normally going to be very logical defenses, but they speak to human concerns about life on earth and the hereafter. Maybe some preference bias or something.

But whether there is even a God to believe in is never up for debate. In order to discuss God’s nature, one is required to hold God’s existence as axiomatic. And that brings us back around to evidence requirements. Evidence isn’t ordinarily required when something is self-evident. That’s the assumption you start with, and all the conclusions you can draw are going to follow from that. If you start by ASSUMING the scientific method, which you cannot use to prove itself, then it follows that all following conclusions are SCIENTIFIC conclusions.

---

SMiLes in Short 'Now' God's

Not A Word, So Everything 'NOW'

We Say About God is 'Straw Man';

All That Exists Is Now; All 'This', 'That,

And the Other 'Thing'

'Stuff' About Time,

Distance,

Space,

And Matter

Is Also A 'Straw Man';

Escaping From Now Is

Impossible; So God Exists As Now; Yes,

Yet Again This Is All Just A Straw Man (Words)

In Other Words, All These Words are Just a 'CR8P' Shoot;

Truly What Fertilizes Life is More Valuable Than All 9.3 MiLLioN Words

of my LoVE BiBLE That i Name "SonG oF mY SoUL" That Does Not

Adequately Measure Even One Breath of My LoVE NoW (God)

THere is

No Option

FoR ME AT Least

Yet Than to Defer to 'Now' (God);

Hehe Yet This Is Only 'MY PERSONAL RESPONSBILITY'...

To Be Clear i am Not Debating Now; i am only Water Wave Ocean Whole (God) Now..

---

I just mean straw man as a way of purposefully misrepresenting someone’s argument in such a way to easily defeat it. I don’t claim to be perfect or have all the answers, but I at least attempt intellectual honesty as best I can. Straw man arguments, moving goalposts, and red herrings are pet peeves of mine.

AngelRho, we're getting nowhere. All of this is about faith and belief. What it comes down to is that you either believe or you don't. You use all kinds of BS, sophistry and mental gymnastics which isn't logical at all. Your belief system or whatever you want to call it and the whole creation story of the Bible is so filled with holes it is like swiss cheese and all you guys wish to do is shift the goal posts.

I'm bowing out of this discussion which has gotten nowhere and has not benefitted my life in anyway shape or form.

To the mods: Please read everything and come to your own conclusions about this guy.

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 25 May 2021, 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Okay..

With God, all things are possible including contradictions.

I don't think AngelRho is a bad guy.

He's just a guy who has some conservative ideas, and believes in Christianity.

The Bible, to him, is the ultimate reference.

---

Yes Without

DarK THere
Is No LiGHT

At Least

In Human (Words)

Terms With SMiLes..

---

I know!

I just don't accept his or conservative's brand of Christianity. I just don't accept how most Christians interpret the Bible today. I definitely don't accept AngelRho's interpretation. One has to look at the Bible, the people who put the words into the Bible and the culture that surrounds them. It was Constantine and the first council of nicea who decided what would be included into the Bible and what would not be. There are books like that the book of Enoch that were not included.

Who were the people of the day? Who was Constantine? What was their culture like? Their technology? Education level? What was their thinking like?

Look at people down the ages and how they thought? They didn't have modern education systems like we do today and literacy was rare.

When the writers wrote that God was all powerful and had infinite wisdom? How did they think of being powerful? What was power to them? What was the power that they could conceive of? What is power to us today?

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Look at these two verses of the Bible. When the writers wrote this what was their conception? How did they conceive of what the word beginning meant? The beginning of existence itself? How did they conceive of the heavens? Is our conception the same as theirs?

And, how do we know that God has told us everything? Has God truthfully revealed everything about who and what he really is or does he say that his ways are not his ways?

Truth is there are holes in AngelRho's and other Christian's interpretation of what God is and who he is?

Even the creation story with Adam and even and when God created the heavens and Earth and the seas and all of the animals has holes. One possibility is how modern man vs ancient man read the story in Genesis.

If man is imperfect and he gets his inspiration from God and all things God will his interpretation be perfect? Will he capture the true essence of who and what God with finite words in a Bible that was canonized and put together by man who even God considers sinful?

I have my questions and I have my doubts that the Bible is the perfect, inerrant word of God and I have my doubts of the properties ascribed to God by modern day Christians.

My answer to all of this is that I simply don't know. I can make my own guesses here and there but that's it. I'm like my fellow man. Not perfect and I get crap wrong all the time. And, I'm autistic like the majority here on wrongplanet.

AngelRho is assured that he is right. I don't think so. But, to each his own I guess.

So, all I can do is simply live my life the best way I can and do things to help others here and there the best that I can. That's all I can do. If there really is a God I hope he can accept that.

I read some of the verses differently then they do.

If man is imperfect, then man lies. Is everything man says a lie?

If everything man says is a lie, then this statement is also a lie. That would be a contradiction, and contradictions don’t exist. Since contradictions don’t exist, then the premise is wrong. Therefore, NOT everything man says is a lie. Even intentional liars tell the truth sometimes when it suits them.

The Bible wasn’t written by people intent on lying. The failure in your reasoning is your hidden assumption that the writers couldn’t possibly have been truthful. Why assume that the Bible is full of errors? If that is the case, then that’s something you need to prove. So prove it.

If everything man says is a lie, then this statement is also a lie. That would be a contradiction, and contradictions don’t exist. Since contradictions don’t exist, then the premise is wrong. Therefore, NOT everything man says is a lie. Even intentional liars tell the truth sometimes when it suits them.

The Bible wasn’t written by people intent on lying. The failure in your reasoning is your hidden assumption that the writers couldn’t possibly have been truthful. Why assume that the Bible is full of errors? If that is the case, then that’s something you need to prove. So prove it.[/quote]


Or man, may tell what they believe to be true but may be misunderstanding or misinterpreting things.

You're assuming that if one doesn't tell the truth that one lies. That's not necessarily so. One can be truthful but be wrong meaning one can misinterpret and be misinformed.

Think about this if you witness a being like God destroy a city like Sodom they're going to think he's all powerful because no one or nothing else could do it like God. But, does it mean that being is truthfully all powerful or simply very powerful?

How would we know that being is all powerful or simply very powerful?

In fact, how can you have an all powerful God? If God was all powerful then wouldn't be be able to create a square circle or any object with mutually exclusive properties. If we accept no contradictions can exist then it would not be logical for God to be all powerful or all knowing.

Please provide incontrovertible proof that Bible is full of errors.