Epic Debate Over God's Existance

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

On least a couple occasions, Pharaoh had initially hardened his own heart against letting the Israelites go: “But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart” (Exodus 8:15). “But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart” (Exodus 8:32). Pharaoh and Egypt had brought these judgments on themselves with 400 years of slavery and mass murder, so imo it would have been just if God had completely annihilated Egypt.

 

 

This is why its important to read the whole story, otherwise we fall into the trap of picking selective verses to emphasize a biased narrative.

 

 

   You care about biased narrative?  You?     

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Before, the debate boiled down to; Since God knows the past and the future (Isaiah 46:10), we cannot truly have free will.

I personally believe that our destiny is not set in stone, "Whosoever believeth" ( John 3:16) is a choice that we freely make.

As Sarah Connor said in the Terminator movie, "We have no fate but what we make". Our future (eternity) is up to us.

 

 

 

I was raising a physics question about the nature of time.  Do you have anything to add?

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

No.  But the baker, the cobbler, the writers and musicians and multitudes who had nothing to do with anything weren't Nazis.  In your view it's all in or none.

 

 

In fairness to Dan, being guilty of something, can be hard to define.  Consider America's war crimes in Vietnam.  I was never there.  I never shot anybody.  But my taxes supported the army that did.  Am I personally culpable?  Maybe.

 

 

 

 

[RevBogovac]

25 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

In fairness to Dan, being guilty of something, can be hard to define.  Consider America's war crimes in Vietnam.  I was never there.  I never shot anybody.  But my taxes supported the army that did.  Am I personally culpable?  Maybe.

 

Maybe. But a baby is not. Anyone (a supposedly all-knowing, all-mighty god in particular) who punishes them for anything is a "sick puppy" in my book.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 minutes ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Maybe. But a baby is not. Anyone (a supposedly all-knowing, all-mighty god in particular) who punishes them for anything is a "sick puppy" in my book.

 

 

 

Yes.     

[Pete]

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

In fairness to Dan, being guilty of something, can be hard to define.  Consider America's war crimes in Vietnam.  I was never there.  I never shot anybody.  But my taxes supported the army that did.  Am I personally culpable?  Maybe.

 

 

 

 

The question is what choice did you get. I know a Polish man who fought reluctantly for Germany in WW2. When captured he fought for the Allies. The choice he was given by the Germans was enlist by the end of the week or we arrest your family, parents, wife and children.  Is he guilty? I find that hard to accept. Likewise with you it was pay your taxes or go to jail and your loved ones suffer. 

[cuchulain]

If it was freewill they are guilty.  But human decision is based entirely on factors that are allegedly in control of a deity.  Thus the cards can only read what he printed on them.

[Pete]

6 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

If it was freewill they are guilty.  But human decision is based entirely on factors that are allegedly in control of a deity.  Thus the cards can only read what he printed on them.

What part of scripture did a deity write . Nothing . Just because those who wrote it said their dirty led them to write it does not mean it is true and especially when one cannot prove the deity exists in the first place. If you kill because a book told one too and you did not use your own gumption, then in my view you are guilty. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

21 minutes ago, Pete said:

What part of scripture did a deity write . Nothing . Just because those who wrote it said their dirty led them to write it does not mean it is true and especially when one cannot prove the deity exists in the first place. If you kill because a book told one too and you did not use your own gumption, then in my view you are guilty. 

 

 

God created the entire Universe and everything in it -- but can't produce Scripture without human help?

 

Of course, every word of Scripture was produced by a human hand.  That's a lot of pious fraud.

 

     

 

 

[Dan56]

18 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I was raising a physics question about the nature of time.  Do you have anything to add?

 

 

I'm no Physicist, I simply believe God created time for us, and because of us. As to your hypotheses, the  book analogy applies to God, but I don't think the latter chapters of a book are set in stone since God being omnipotent as well as omniscient, has the capability of changing what may have been.

[Dan56]

17 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Maybe. But a baby is not. Anyone (a supposedly all-knowing, all-mighty god in particular) who punishes them for anything is a "sick puppy" in my book.

 

All flesh dies, we were born to die. Its only a punishment to you because you treasure this brief stint of life. Babies are innocent, so I don't believe they are judged or condemned. They will live the millennium (Revelation 20:7-10) and have a chance of eternal life, unlike adults who outright reject Christ.

[RevBogovac]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

All flesh dies, we were born to die. Its only a punishment to you because you treasure this brief stint of life. Babies are innocent, so I don't believe they are judged or condemned. They will live the millennium (Revelation 20:7-10) and have a chance of eternal life, unlike adults who outright reject Christ.

 

Ah yes, that obviously justifies infanticide. To you, at least.

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: enjoy your "good" god. 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I'm no Physicist, I simply believe God created time for us, and because of us. As to your hypotheses, the  book analogy applies to God, but I don't think the latter chapters of a book are set in stone since God being omnipotent as well as omniscient, has the capability of changing what may have been.

 

 

I know.  It does make for miserable conversation.     

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

All flesh dies, we were born to die. Its only a punishment to you because you treasure this brief stint of life. Babies are innocent, so I don't believe they are judged or condemned. They will live the millennium (Revelation 20:7-10) and have a chance of eternal life, unlike adults who outright reject Christ.

 

 

That may be the worst thing you ever said on this board.  A true death cult.        

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

20 minutes ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Ah yes, that obviously justifies infanticide. To you, at least.

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: enjoy your "good" god. 

 

 

 

 

I found it an eye opener.     

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I'm no Physicist, I simply believe God created time for us, and because of us. As to your hypotheses, the  book analogy applies to God, but I don't think the latter chapters of a book are set in stone since God being omnipotent as well as omniscient, has the capability of changing what may have been.

So history literally changes to suit your beliefs...not egocentric at all.  Good luck with that b.s.

[Key]

On 7/15/2020 at 1:38 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

This thread has already wandered.  It can wander some more.

 

Alright:  Do we have free will?  Do we have the illusion of free will?

 

I would like to start things with a physics question.  What is the nature of time?  I'm fairly certain that the past is fixed and unchanging.  Could the future also be fixed and unchanging?  If the future is as unchanging as the past -- then free will is illusory.  Like the pages in a book.  We can turn the pages back to an earlier chapter.  We can turn the pages ahead to a later chapter.  We can't change the story.  I don't know that this is the case.  I don't know.

 

That should get us started.     

 

 

I'd prefer to start a new thread. This one has been perverted enough. Besides, I'm likely to leave a lengthy response of what I think on this particular excursion if ya truly got me started.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

38 minutes ago, Key said:

I'd prefer to start a new thread. This one has been perverted enough. Besides, I'm likely to leave a lengthy response of what I think on this particular excursion if ya truly got me started.

 

 

I'd prefer to start a new thread.

 

That works for me.  If you start a new thread, I will be happy to chat there.

 

 

 

Besides, I'm likely to leave a lengthy response

 

Small bites, please.  It can get lengthy, but not all at once.  If the opening statement is huge, it's hard to respond.

 

 

😎

 

 

 

 

 

[Seeker]

I would be interested in that debate.

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

44 minutes ago, Seeker said:

I would be interested in that debate.

 

 

 

 

Just as soon as Key starts the thread.  Or someone else.  I don't know why.  I feel reluctant to start this one.

 

Hold off on answering.  Did you see my physics question on time?