Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[37818]

TWeb needs better apologists.

A problem with semantics. My claim that God made man good was not my claim but God's claim that what He made was good. I am sorry I am unable to make that understandable to everyone.

[37818]

I read this somewhere:

This is why there was no primeval sin: Adam and Eve were innocent and without sin which means they didn't:

1. know what death was.
2. understand threats (you will surely die)
3. know what lies and deception were (couldn't tell if the snake was telling the truth or not).
4. know what responsibility was.
5. know what punishment was.
6. know or understand the value of power (you will be like god)
7. know what the choice was as, without knowledge, you have no knowledge and can't understand if it's worth having and which is better no knowledge or knowledge.

Man didn't fall; it is without any doubt or contrary possibility that, if a god existed, the test was a prearranged certainty, rigged by god who created sin and sinned by using lies and deception to enforce the inevitable on Adam and Eve. Then he committed the further sin of falsely accusing them of making a free will choice to defy him. If god exists, they didn't fall they were pushed and all sin and evil that followed is god's direct responsibility and creation.

Man knew what death was. Else God's instruction was meaningless, ". . . the day you eat thereof you shall surely die." What man did not know was the difference between what was good and what was evil as yet. God made "good" man without that innate knowledge.

[37818]

I did not make the claim God made man good. God [said] it was good in the account. I explained why it was not a contradiction.

Missing word.

[JimL]

Man knew what death was. Else God's instruction was meaningless, ". . . the day you eat thereof you shall surely die."

Well, the day they ate thereof, they didn't die. Besides most christians don't seem to know what death is even today, most think that they merely get new bodies and ascend into the next and heavenly world. Odd how none of them seem to be in much of a hurry to get there though.

What man did not know was the difference between what was good and what was evil as yet. God made "good" man without that innate knowledge.

And what did they learn that good and evil are?

[JimL]

Missing word.

Malarky. You said "god made man good, and then a good man made a bad decision."

[37818]

I did not claim to have [said] any such thing.

This blatant combined straw-man and attempt to shift the burden of proof is further evidence that there is no substantive evidence for your god, only non-substantive (and flawed) argument. If there was substantive evidence for your god, you wouldn't need to engage in such shenanigans.

No, I did not say you made any such claim. And yes, I did shift the burden of proof to you. My substantive evidence for God is that He is the Existence in which all existent things have their being. Existence exists. And that you and others do not have that concept of God, does not change the fact. The Apostle Paul argued, "In Him we live and move and have our being . . ."

[Roy]

My substantive evidence for God is that He is the Existence in which all existent things have their being.

That's neither substantive, nor evidence.

[37818]

That's neither substantive, nor evidence.

Existence is substantive and without which there is no evidence. BTW God's Hebrew Name is understood to mean Existent. He being the self Existent one by which all other things need in order to exist. That you deny God is God is your personal problem and the personal problem for all who deny who and "what" He is.

[Tassman]

Existence is substantive and without which there is no evidence. BTW God's Hebrew Name is understood to mean Existent. He being the self Existent one by which all other things need in order to exist. That you deny God is God is your personal problem and the personal problem for all who deny who and "what" He is.

The only reason you can make this claim is because God's Hebrew name is in the bible. But the bible was written by men. So God's Hebrew name and its "meaning" is merely mans invention.

[37818]

The only reason you can make this claim is because God's Hebrew name is in the bible. But the bible was written by men. So God's Hebrew name and its "meaning" is merely mans invention.

Not if in fact those words of the Hebrew Bible was given by God. And you know for a fact that it was not given to men from God how?

[JimL]

Not if in fact those words of the Hebrew Bible was given by God. And you know for a fact that it was not given to men from God how?

How were they given? The words came out of a mans brain and were written with a mans hand, so how were they given to man by god? Was god dictating as the man wrote? Anyone can say that their ideas came from god, but give me one good reason that anyone should believe that?

[37818]

How were they given? The words came out of a mans brain and were written with a mans hand, so how were they given to man by god? Was god dictating as the man wrote? Anyone can say that their ideas came from god, but give me one good reason that anyone should believe that?

The Apostle Peter was given by the Holy Spirit to say and have it written, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the writing is of any private origin. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

[Tassman]

Not if in fact those words of the Hebrew Bible was given by God.

I don't believe it. Some theists do, but I don't.

And you know for a fact that it was not given to men from God how?

I don't know that any more that you "know" it was given to men from God.

[37818]

I don't believe it. Some theists do, but I don't.



I don't know that any more that you "know" it was given to men from God.

On the contrary, if other Christians and I know God, and so in turn would also know the words were given by God. Other Christians and I do know God. So why do you not? You said you do not believe it. But why? You have argued what you called a lack of substantive evidence. Yet you have that lack of substantive evidence because you have in turn denied each piece of substantive evidence. So you effectively do not have any.

Well?

Uncaused existence which is the identity of God. [There could never have been nothingness. Or there could never be anything.]
The universe which is evidence of cause.
Information found in this universe which is evidence of intelligence. [Like DNA. The laws of logic.]
A human history written, claiming to be from God, and given to men to have written it.
Other humans today claiming to know this God.

[JimL]

The Apostle Peter was given by the Holy Spirit to say and have it written, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the writing is of any private origin. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

Yes, well, what you're doing in the above is quoting the bible in order to refute the charge that I made about the bible. That doesn't work. In other words you're telling me that the bible is of the holy spirit, because it is written in the bible that it is of the holy spirit.