what you call "bleeding obvious"
Oops that was Simon. Reading too fast. Sorry.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
what you call "bleeding obvious"
Oops that was Simon. Reading too fast. Sorry.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Please address the question directly, and preferably without any further analogies. Cofty
I did so. The analogies were only there to help people who are unable to grasp simple logical statements. But here it is again:
Whilst the statement may be true, the way you are framing it is an oversimplification. What you are really asking us to agree is:
God is love therefore every act or lack of action taken in isolation must definable as an act of love.
This is not necessarily true.
The bold type is to assist you to see the logical point without the need of an analogy.
You seem incapable of applying what you call "bleeding obvious" in a logical sense.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
... but your analogy is broken because ... Viviane
Just like in real life, things tend to break when they are misused.
I would like to know why your record is broken.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
We are not trying to prove that god doesn't exist, just get an admission that there is no evidence that he does exist. Simon
For the thousandth time it is not about the existence of god. Cofty
So which is it?
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Viviane: Not buying a car doesn't = not generous.
That is correct.
Finally, in soccer, hockey, Australian and American football and rugby, backwards moves are part of a valid strategy with the entire field visible and an explantion for the call.
That is correct too. The point of the analogy in this case is that a single action taken in isolation does not reflect the overall picture.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
I don't have to pretend. THE GLADIATOR
That's no surprise to me. But for those that are able to comprehend it I will continue to discuss. If there isn't anybody on this site that can, then so be it.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Okay, I switched my brain back on and I will have to withdraw what I previously wrote (oh wait, someone already removed it so that's good). It's too painful not to be allowed to think.
Cofty asked which of these I disagree with:
1. God observed the Asian tsunami as it evolved
2. God knew it would kill a quarter of a million people and displace 5 million more
3. God had the power to stop the tsuanmi
4. God did not stop the tsuanmi
5. Everything that god does is perfectly loving
6. Therefore allowing a tsunami to drown a quarter of a million people is a perfect act of love.
It starts to go off the rails at point 5.
Whilst the statement may be true, the way you are framing it is an oversimplification. What you are really asking us to agree is:
God is love therefore every act or lack of action taken in isolation must definable as an act of love.
This is not necessarily true.
I will create a couple more analogies that you can have fun misapplying and pretending not to understand.
You are a generous father. Does every action taken in isolation reflect that? Your daughter asks you for a high powered sports car as soon as she passes her driving test. Let's say you have the power to buy it i.e. it's easily affordable to you. Should we expect every action you make (or do not make) to reflect your generous personality? If we take your decision in isolation (assuming that you are a sensible parent who withholds it because of care for her safety) does this non-action in isolation reflect your entire personality as non-generous?
Here's another. The objective of a soccer team is to get the ball to other end of the pitch and score. A player makes a pass backwards. If taken in isolation does that mean that the player is not acting in accord with the objective?
Now you will say ... explain how killing a gazillion people = passing a soccer ball, blah.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
There is a good reason Flamegrilled refuses to engage in anything except a flawed analogy.
The only reason that I didn't move beyond the logical example is because you refused to answer it, and/or insisted that it be turned into an analogy to fit the tsunami specifically, which I explicitly had said I never intended.
Now that you say that you grant the point made I am happy to discuss it beyond that. But as long as you grant that the point is made then the assertion made in your OP is not necessarily true. It might well appear that the existence of a loving higher being is impossible in the light of the tsunami or any other "natural evil", but since we can already conceive of circumstances under which such a conclusion would be false based upon limited information we cannot be certain that reaching such a conclusion would be true in this case.
I have company right now, but I will try to respond to the further points later.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
No, because it is not an analogy about the tsunami as I have said several times. It is not intended to parallel the experience in any way. It simply demonstrates we can logically conceive of a situation whereby a being of lower intelligence is not capable of understanding the situation. If it makes what seems like the obvious conclusion it would be wrong.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
bohm - no, that's a different analogy which would be attempting to demonstrate a different point.