Originally posted by twhiteheadStill too vague. So far you are just telling us the soul isn't part of the body, but we know nothing about it. It might as well be a pink unicorn and it would still fit your definition. Who cares if it exists if we know nothing about it and it has no known properties?
Still too vague. So far you are just telling us the soul isn't part of the body, but we know nothing about it. It might as well be a pink unicorn and it would still fit your definition. Who cares if it exists if we know nothing about it and it has no known properties?
[b]Obviously the fall also plays a role.
What role? What does the suffering in ...[text shortened]... nvince me of them too. And that will only be one of my objections to the claims of Christianity.[/b]
No one knows. I am telling you what I believe, and no the definition of the soul does not describe pink unicorns.
What role? What does the suffering in question have to do with free will?
The capacity for free will brought in sin, which is ultimately the result of all suffering.
So why can't God prevent that? It is perfectly possible to allow free will but ban murder. We do that in most civilised societies, why hasn't God thought of that? The claim that free will requires war is just plain stupid.
I believe he can and he will someday when he creates a new heaven and a new earth. War is a result of free will.
Well according to what you have said so far, the cannot be. Either heaven is full of suffering,(contradicting claims of Christianity) or free will does not require suffering (contradicting your claims trying to explain suffering).
I said suffering is the results of free will on earth. I think the conditions in heaven will be different to earth, but I don't know for sure.
In this case however, the historical consensus is that it didn't happen.
The source that was given me admits " "Presumably an original Exodus story lies hidden somewhere inside all the later revisions and alterations, but centuries of transmission have long obscured its presence, and its substance, accuracy and date are now difficult to determine."`
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBecause so many people believe what the Bible says to be true.
Why do you think so many believe in the existence of a soul if, as you say, no evidence in favour of its existence can be found?
My question to you is why do so many atheists believe that abiogenesis is true when there is no reproducible experiment to suggest that it is possible?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou said:
No one knows. I am telling you what I believe, and no the definition of the soul does not describe pink unicorns.
I think the body and soul are distinctly separate entities.
A pink unicorn is distinct from the body. Therefore it does fit.
The capacity for free will brought in sin, which is ultimately the result of all suffering.
It still doesn't add up.
I believe he can and he will someday when he creates a new heaven and a new earth.
But hasn't until now. Therefore either:
1. He can't.
2. Free will necessarily requires war.
3. He doesn't love us.
War is a result of free will.
But is it a necessary result? Can you have free will and not fight in a war? Since I was born, I have never been in a war and my country has not been in a war. Have I not had free will?
I said suffering is the results of free will on earth. I think the conditions in heaven will be different to earth, but I don't know for sure.
So suffering is not a necessary outcome of free will.
So back to the question, why can't God prevent suffering?
The source that was given me admits " "Presumably an original Exodus story lies hidden somewhere inside all the later revisions and alterations, but centuries of transmission have long obscured its presence, and its substance, accuracy and date are now difficult to determine."`
An 'Exodus story' is not an Exodus. Whether or not any actual exodus took place or where from is totally unknown. The Exodus story in the the Bible is fictional.
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut hasn't until now. Therefore either:
You said:I think the body and soul are distinctly separate entities.
A pink unicorn is distinct from the body. Therefore it does fit.
[b]The capacity for free will brought in sin, which is ultimately the result of all suffering.
It still doesn't add up.
I believe he can and he will someday when he creates a new heaven and ...[text shortened]... dus took place or where from is totally unknown. The Exodus story in the the Bible is fictional.
1. He can't.
2. Free will necessarily requires war.
3. He doesn't love us.
Or 4. He loves us and has a greater purpose with suffering.
But is it a necessary result? Can you have free will and not fight in a war? Since I was born, I have never been in a war and my country has not been in a war. Have I not had free will?
If you had no free will you wouldn't be able to start a war. Free will allows you to start a war if you were a puppet on a string you probably wouldn't be able to start a war but then you wouldn't have free will.
So back to the question, why can't God prevent suffering?
I think CS Lewis summed it up the best: “Pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”
The Exodus story in the the Bible is fictional.
So you believe.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkEarlier you said that 'greater purpose' was 'giving us free will'. Have you changed your mind? If so, what is this new 'greater purpose'?
Or 4. He loves us and has a greater purpose with suffering.
If you had no free will you wouldn't be able to start a war.
But it doesn't require me to start a war.
Free will allows you to start a war if you were a puppet on a string you probably wouldn't be able to start a war but then you wouldn't have free will.
I could have free will without being able to start a war. Five year olds have free will, but cannot start wars. I am an adult, and cannot single handedly start a war. And I have had free will all my life without starting a war. Being able to start a war is clearly not necessary for free will. Therefore wars are not a necessary outcome of free will and allowing wars is not explained by the desire to give us free will.
I think CS Lewis summed it up the best:
As far as I am aware CS Lewis never summed up anything well.
“Pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”
And your point is?
So you believe.
Yes, so I believe, and my belief is based solely on the consensus of historians as I have explained. If you wish to change that belief, you have to provide evidence that contradicts that belief. Until then, I will continue to believe it and it will remain one of the reasons why I find the Bible to be a less than credible source.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBelief in a "soul" or something analogous to it is not exclusive to Christians. In fact, many people not affiliated with a formal religion believe in something like a soul. So your explanation seems to be a bit lacking. Why do you feel it is necessary to assume the existence of a soul?
Because so many people believe what the Bible says to be true.
My question to you is why do so many atheists believe that abiogenesis is true when there is no reproducible experiment to suggest that it is possible?
My question to you is why do so many atheists believe that abiogenesis is true when there is no reproducible experiment to suggest that it is possible?
I can't speak for other atheists, but I think abiogenesis is the most plausible explanation for how life came to be on Earth. In fact it is rather obvious - we know that at one point there was no life on Earth, and then there was. So the question is not whether simple lifeforms spontaneously formed, but how exactly this process works. From what I gather there are a number of plausible theories, but this is not my field so I will refer you to the scientists studying abiogenesis and their published works if you want to know more about this topic.
Originally posted by sonshipI can answer the simple question - atheism makes no claims so no "proof" or "evidence" for the non-claims could possibly be provided.
800 replies to the question of basically "What is your evidence of the correctness of Atheism?"
[b] 800 replies and no one answers the question
(Only five minutes fifty some seconds)
Atheist can't answer a simple question Where is the proof and evidence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eil9chRNBKA[/b]
Originally posted by sonshipYou seriously need to either work on your reading comprehension, or stop being so dishonest. That is not what this thread is about, nor are most of the posts about that.
800 replies to the question of basically "What is your evidence of the correctness of Atheism?"
800 replies and no one answers the question
In addition, there are as of this posting only 744 posts in the thread, about half of which are by theists.
(Only five minutes fifty some seconds)
Atheist can't answer a simple question Where is the proof and evidence?
A typical sonship post, arguing with people who aren't here.
First off, half of this thread is about the definition of the term 'atheism'. That you clearly are using a different definition from the preferred one, suggests you haven't read the thread, and cannot honestly claim that in all the replies in the thread there was no answer to the question.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou seriously need to finally answer the question put to you on "The evolution of the Coca Cola Can" thread some 15 or so days ago.
You seriously need to either work on your reading comprehension, or stop being so dishonest. That is not what this thread is about, nor are most of the posts about that.
In addition, there are as of this posting only 744 posts in the thread, about half of which are by theists.
[b](Only five minutes fifty some seconds)
Atheist can't answer a simple ...[text shortened]... cannot honestly claim that in all the replies in the thread there was no answer to the question.
What is the contradiction?
That might be nice before lecturing others on honest thread interaction.
Originally posted by sonshipGiven that you haven't admitted to making a mistake, I am going to take it that you outright lied about this thread in your previous post.
That might be nice before lecturing others on honest thread interaction.
As for suggesting I am being dishonest for overlooking a question in an old thread that isn't even in the active list, that is just more dishonesty on your part.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadNow I get to say one of your favorite lines.
I believe I did actually respond to it in another thread.
You believe wrongly.
Go check. LOL
That is unless you sneak one in right now.
As of 5/31
Originally posted by twhitehead
I see you are now posting material that essentially contradicts your earlier stance on what is absolute.
Fetch:
What is the contradiction?