So who made the deal with the Devil?

[zombie]

..besides.. stuff like this..

not necessarily. That is a figure of speech. Not me saying I don't respect your opinion. Im just trying to understand how you can believe that everything that happens Is in alignment with "nature" and nothing else, but oppose the idea of a intelligent designer.

Because there has to be at least several laws of nature that govern God's existence, much less his intelligence and his ability to create anything at all. Nothing can be arranged that orderly unless there is a principle behind it. That principle behind all things is nature. Humans have personified it as "mother nature" and "father God" but nature is not an intelligent being per se. It creates intelligent entities.

The only thing that governs gods existence is his will and the principle behind nature is gods will.

..makes 0 sense.

it makes perfect sense to people

who under understand the god the bible presents

 

[zombie]

Those weren't directed at you. I've already talked about this with you before and you weren't able to grasp what was being said as the convo went deeper. I'd like to hear someone else please. If you'd like, I'll answer you when you reply to those old arguments.

I replied because his argument is similar to mine. I understand what you are trying to say but it's based on faulty logic.

I replied to all your fault argument before you just refused to accept answers because the trump your self conceived notions about what it means for god to be omniscient.

 

[Bodhi]

Those weren't directed at you. I've already talked about this with you before and you weren't able to grasp what was being said as the convo went deeper. I'd like to hear someone else please. If you'd like, I'll answer you when you reply to those old arguments.

I replied because his argument is similar to mine. I understand what you are trying to say but it's based on faulty logic.

I replied to all your fault argument before you just refused to accept answers because the trump your self conceived notions about what it means for god to be omniscient.

No, last time we had this conversation, you devolved into a debate about whether or not a caterpillar and the butterfly it matures into is the same species. You thought they weren't. You were wrong.

You argued that Lucifer and Satan were not the same person. You eventually abandoned that argument once you realized that they are.

You attempted to argue that the future is not real but you were not able to comprehend the opposing argument well enough to go further without one-lining.

And I've already demonstrated to you how open theism fails... which is an entirely different debate for another day.

Like I said, if you want to keep taking about that, I'll be happy to if you would bump that thread with a continued argument. Otherwise, leave me to converse with those who have been speaking to me already. It's not that I'm trying to avoid you. You're making too many unnecessary posts when I'm trying to talk to 2 or 3 people already. Let them think for themselves. Anything further from you here will be ignored.

 

[Bodhi]

No disrespect btw

 

[Bodhi]

This is the definition of omniscient for those who don't know, btw..

1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

 

[Arya Tsaddiq]

not necessarily. That is a figure of speech. Not me saying I don't respect your opinion. Im just trying to understand how you can believe that everything that happens Is in alignment with "nature" and nothing else, but oppose the idea of a intelligent designer.

Because there has to be at least several laws of nature that govern God's existence, much less his intelligence and his ability to create anything at all. Nothing can be arranged that orderly unless there is a principle behind it. That principle behind all things is nature. Humans have personified it as "mother nature" and "father God" but nature is not an intelligent being per se. It creates intelligent entities.

ok...what "laws" of nature are you referring to? Because without understanding that I cannot counter this statement

 

[Bodhi]

not necessarily. That is a figure of speech. Not me saying I don't respect your opinion. Im just trying to understand how you can believe that everything that happens Is in alignment with "nature" and nothing else, but oppose the idea of a intelligent designer.

Because there has to be at least several laws of nature that govern God's existence, much less his intelligence and his ability to create anything at all. Nothing can be arranged that orderly unless there is a principle behind it. That principle behind all things is nature. Humans have personified it as "mother nature" and "father God" but nature is not an intelligent being per se. It creates intelligent entities.

ok...what "laws" of nature are you referring to? Because without understanding that I cannot counter this statement

It's metaphysical.

God is a hypothesis. I'm saying that based on observable phenomena dealing with intelligent entities, an intelligent mind has laws behind it that serve as a foundation of sorts for the possibility of its existence.

 

[Arya Tsaddiq]

not necessarily. That is a figure of speech. Not me saying I don't respect your opinion. Im just trying to understand how you can believe that everything that happens Is in alignment with "nature" and nothing else, but oppose the idea of a intelligent designer.

Because there has to be at least several laws of nature that govern God's existence, much less his intelligence and his ability to create anything at all. Nothing can be arranged that orderly unless there is a principle behind it. That principle behind all things is nature. Humans have personified it as "mother nature" and "father God" but nature is not an intelligent being per se. It creates intelligent entities.

ok...what "laws" of nature are you referring to? Because without understanding that I cannot counter this statement

It's metaphysical.

God is a hypothesis. I'm saying that based on observable phenomena dealing with intelligent entities, an intelligent mind has laws behind it that serve as a foundation of sorts for the possibility of its existence.

Oh ok...Now I understand....

The whole justification behind my stance relies on the assumption that God does exist. You, on the otherhand, think of the world from a different perspective. The laws of our phyiscal existance do not apply to the Most High, and it seems as if that;s what you are referring to. The Most Highs existance as an intelligent creator cannot be observably proven, thus doesn't exist.

We can never come to an agrrement about the Universe as a whole, because or views are too different.

 

[zombie]

Those weren't directed at you. I've already talked about this with you before and you weren't able to grasp what was being said as the convo went deeper. I'd like to hear someone else please. If you'd like, I'll answer you when you reply to those old arguments.

I replied because his argument is similar to mine. I understand what you are trying to say but it's based on faulty logic.

I replied to all your fault argument before you just refused to accept answers because the trump your self conceived notions about what it means for god to be omniscient.

No, last time we had this conversation, you devolved into a debate about whether or not a caterpillar and the butterfly it matures into is the same species. You thought they weren't. You were wrong.

You argued that Lucifer and Satan were not the same person. You eventually abandoned that argument once you realized that they are.

You attempted to argue that the future is not real but you were not able to comprehend the opposing argument well enough to go further without one-lining.

And I've already demonstrated to you how open theism fails... which is an entirely different debate for another day.

Like I said, if you want to keep taking about that, I'll be happy to if you would bump that thread with a continued argument. Otherwise, leave me to converse with those who have been speaking to me already. It's not that I'm trying to avoid you. You're making too many unnecessary posts when I'm trying to talk to 2 or 3 people already. Let them think for themselves. Anything further from you here will be ignored.

The debate about satan and lucifer was about the nature of the soul not about the nature of the future your response only lets me know that your don't understand what open theism is about in the first place. I understand the opposing argument but it's a faulty argument based on your faulty logic.

@MANSAMUSA67 @ROCK_WELL am i stopping you from thinking for yourself ? This is an open forum and i will not let you spew faulty arguments/misunderstanding about the god of the bible. uncontested i am not doing it for you so much but for other people who might be reading this. talking about laws that govern god no laws govern god except his own will if you understood the god of the bible you would know that.

 

[Rasta.]

=player_detailpage

 

[Bodhi]

not necessarily. That is a figure of speech. Not me saying I don't respect your opinion. Im just trying to understand how you can believe that everything that happens Is in alignment with "nature" and nothing else, but oppose the idea of a intelligent designer.

Because there has to be at least several laws of nature that govern God's existence, much less his intelligence and his ability to create anything at all. Nothing can be arranged that orderly unless there is a principle behind it. That principle behind all things is nature. Humans have personified it as "mother nature" and "father God" but nature is not an intelligent being per se. It creates intelligent entities.

ok...what "laws" of nature are you referring to? Because without understanding that I cannot counter this statement

It's metaphysical.

God is a hypothesis. I'm saying that based on observable phenomena dealing with intelligent entities, an intelligent mind has laws behind it that serve as a foundation of sorts for the possibility of its existence.

Oh ok...Now I understand....

The whole justification behind my stance relies on the assumption that God does exist. You, on the otherhand, think of the world from a different perspective. The laws of our phyiscal existance do not apply to the Most High, and it seems as if that;s what you are referring to. The Most Highs existance as an intelligent creator cannot be observably proven, thus doesn't exist.

We can never come to an agrrement about the Universe as a whole, because or views are too different.

My argument isn't that god doesn't exist because he cannot be proven. What I'm saying is that his existence would have some type of natural laws behind it to 1.) Provide grounds for his being; 2.) Govern the process and order of his thoughts; 3.) Allow him to create..

 

[Rock_Well]

As a rule I try not to concern myself too much as to what 'Classical Theism' says about God's nature when it's not necessarily supported by what the Bible says.

The Abrahamic religions are under the classical theism umbrella. Classical theism supports the omni x3 theory and is differentiated from other forms of theism like panentheism.

That's fine im just saying.. classic theism's understanding dont always match what's taught in the bible

The Bible does teach that God is all-knowing, but it's a mistake to assume that means also knowing things that just can't be known - what you say Classical Theism says about God's nature.

If God is truly all-knowing, he knows all. If there is something God doesn't know, he is not all-knowing. This includes the future because the future is something. If God cannot know the future, there is a limit placed on God's knowledge and thus he is not omniscient.

semantics.

But fine....yea, even God has some limits...doesn't mean he isn't all powerful or all knowing. But u can look at it like that if u insist.

the future can't be known simply because the future doesn't exist. And that have nothing to do with God being able to say with absolute certaintity that he will carry out a future event exactly how he says.

 

[Bodhi]

Well in this case, what classical theism and the Bible say are the same. That being god is omni x3.. the reason I used those words were because I didn't know whether or not you subscribe to Islamic beliefs or Christianity or Judaism. I didn't say that to argue about it so we can just leave it alone.

Okay well since you admit god has limits on his knowledge, you cannot call him omniscient. Check the definition:

having complete or unlimited knowledge

And the future can be known because the future is real.

 

[Bodhi]

.

 

[Bodhi]

.

 

[Rock_Well]

Those weren't directed at you. I've already talked about this with you before and you weren't able to grasp what was being said as the convo went deeper. I'd like to hear someone else please. If you'd like, I'll answer you when you reply to those old arguments.

I replied because his argument is similar to mine. I understand what you are trying to say but it's based on faulty logic.

I replied to all your fault argument before you just refused to accept answers because the trump your self conceived notions about what it means for god to be omniscient.

No, last time we had this conversation, you devolved into a debate about whether or not a caterpillar and the butterfly it matures into is the same species. You thought they weren't. You were wrong.

You argued that Lucifer and Satan were not the same person. You eventually abandoned that argument once you realized that they are.

You attempted to argue that the future is not real but you were not able to comprehend the opposing argument well enough to go further without one-lining.

And I've already demonstrated to you how open theism fails... which is an entirely different debate for another day.

Like I said, if you want to keep taking about that, I'll be happy to if you would bump that thread with a continued argument. Otherwise, leave me to converse with those who have been speaking to me already. It's not that I'm trying to avoid you. You're making too many unnecessary posts when I'm trying to talk to 2 or 3 people already. Let them think for themselves. Anything further from you here will be ignored.

The debate about satan and lucifer was about the nature of the soul not about the nature of the future your response only lets me know that your don't understand what open theism is about in the first place. I understand the opposing argument but it's a faulty argument based on your faulty logic.

@MANSAMUSA67 @ROCK_WELL am i stopping you from thinking for yourself ? This is an open forum and i will not let you spew faulty arguments/misunderstanding about the god of the bible. uncontested i am not doing it for you so much but for other people who might be reading this. talking about laws that govern god no laws govern god except his own will if you understood the god of the bible you would know that.

nah, i pretty much already know what i believe regarding this matter, and I've tested it already... But thanks

 

[zombie]

Those weren't directed at you. I've already talked about this with you before and you weren't able to grasp what was being said as the convo went deeper. I'd like to hear someone else please. If you'd like, I'll answer you when you reply to those old arguments.

I replied because his argument is similar to mine. I understand what you are trying to say but it's based on faulty logic.

I replied to all your fault argument before you just refused to accept answers because the trump your self conceived notions about what it means for god to be omniscient.

No, last time we had this conversation, you devolved into a debate about whether or not a caterpillar and the butterfly it matures into is the same species. You thought they weren't. You were wrong.

You argued that Lucifer and Satan were not the same person. You eventually abandoned that argument once you realized that they are.

You attempted to argue that the future is not real but you were not able to comprehend the opposing argument well enough to go further without one-lining.

And I've already demonstrated to you how open theism fails... which is an entirely different debate for another day.

Like I said, if you want to keep taking about that, I'll be happy to if you would bump that thread with a continued argument. Otherwise, leave me to converse with those who have been speaking to me already. It's not that I'm trying to avoid you. You're making too many unnecessary posts when I'm trying to talk to 2 or 3 people already. Let them think for themselves. Anything further from you here will be ignored.

The debate about satan and lucifer was about the nature of the soul not about the nature of the future your response only lets me know that your don't understand what open theism is about in the first place. I understand the opposing argument but it's a faulty argument based on your faulty logic.

@MANSAMUSA67 @ROCK_WELL am i stopping you from thinking for yourself ? This is an open forum and i will not let you spew faulty arguments/misunderstanding about the god of the bible. uncontested i am not doing it for you so much but for other people who might be reading this. talking about laws that govern god no laws govern god except his own will if you understood the god of the bible you would know that.

nah, i pretty much already know what i believe regarding this matter, and I've tested it already... But thanks

tell oceanic that

 

[Rock_Well]

And the future can be known because the future is real.

known by who?

And so u agree there's some things of the future that are impossible to know before it happens and also that the future technically doesn't exist yet. So then that doesn't refute my point

and an understanding beyond the omiscient definition can be had about Gods all powerful nature, but if you insist on sticking with that as your standard then you will never get it.

 

[Bodhi]

known by who?

Anyone who has the ability to view it.


..An omniscient or all knowing God for example.

And so u agree there's some things of the future that are impossible to know before it happens and also that the future technically doesn't exist yet.

I never said this. I don't know where you're getting this from. I've been saying the future IS real. It does exist.

and an understanding beyond the omiscient definition can be had about Gods all powerful nature, but if you insist on sticking with that as your standard then you will never get it.

Yeah I try to stick by the language that we speak to get a better understanding of what we're talking about. That seems to be what language is for, you know.

 

[Bodhi]

@Rock_Well