Again, simple evasiveness. Try using a more complete Dictionary, if for no other reason than to assure yourself that your aqcuiesence isn't arbitrarily semantic.

Why would nescience be equal to ignorance by definition, and yet exist as ameans of description for the same thing?

That would clearly be ignorant, don't you think?


wouldee,

Dude,

Come on, man!? What are we debating?

It's a dictionary. It was the first dictionary I looked at. I was ignorant of the words meaning, the definition I was given didn't make sense, so I looked it up. It was just a little due-diligence, on my part.

A dictionary is simply a book where we find an "agreed" meaning to word. This is just so people don't run around creating their own definitions, and so we all know what the heck each other are talking about.

I don't know, wardriver. I'll ask.....Why would we?

Semantics...

I looked it up:

American Heritage Dictionary -

nes·cience
1. Absence of knowledge or awareness; ignorance.
2. Agnosticism.

I have to agree on most of that, spider.

I think this debate goes a lot deeper than the physical appearance of the deities we are talking about.

I don't think most modern theologians would even assign the Christian god a gender. Moot point.

Not true. You were ignorant to the fact that a squirrel was eaten yesterday. You simply didn't know.

Ignorance, by definition is: the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information.

Once again there is omnipotents, or there isn't. There is no inbetween. Either you are all powerful and everything is possible....or even one limit has been impossed..you are no longer all powerful...you have a limit. So is there a limit to the christian gods power?

Now that I made this argument. I think becuase of our conflicting arguments, we are in a circle we will never get out of....

Faith or ignorance are the only two things that can cause that scenario.

So in your opinion, god IS able, but not willing to prevent all evil in the world, because to do so would prevent humans to properly worship him, by choice. So...is that our sole purpose?

This would also mean, it is not omnipotent. This sounds a lot like Zues to me.

I'm not sure I understood this quote. But if I am understanding, I'm not sure if it had much to do with the topic of - "is anything possible with god" topic. Could you please clarify?

You are correct. That is exactly what I would have to do.

I never get tired of this quote:
"Faith is believing in what you know aint true" - Mark Twain

Then again...either

God willing to prevent evil, and not able. Then he is not omnipotent.

He able, but not willing. Then he is malevolent.

He both able and willing. Then whence cometh evil?

He neither able nor willing. Then he is no a God.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no other choices.

I don't think so, but it was you that said,"anything" was possible with a god.

2+2=4 (true)

4=5 = god?
Free will + No evil = God?

So is this anything possible with a god, or not?

So...your saying it CAN prevent evil, but chooses not to...for free will, or anyother reason.

But if anything is possible with god (like 2+2=5 nd by getting my mind out of it's box) Wouldn't it be then possible to have free will with no evil?

Or like 2+2=5...is it impossible? If, so then with god...not everything is possible. Then why call him god.

again, I can't argue against faith.

But, if with a god anything is possible, then you have to ask yourself:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"


- Greek Philosopher - Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]

Interesting quote. … To say god is just 2+2=5? 2+2 doesn't = 5. That calculation does not and cannot exist. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

winnie410,

I don't know for sure, but I don't think I've seen any "name calling" yet. I don't think there has been any "Religious Bashing", either. To say a religion is false, or to critique flaws in a religion (theologans do this all the time) is not religious bashing.

Any religion you don't believe in would be false, correct? Do you believe the Koran, Torah, or any other sacred text beyond the Bible? You don't believe in any of the other gods like, Zeus, Thor, or Dionysus, do you? To say any of this isn't religious bashing.

.....and I simply believe in one less god than you do.

What there has been here, is good debate focused on whatever subject is at hand, not the people. I believe this is one of the better (respectfull) religious debates I have been a part of. I enjoy it.

Redykeulous,

Excellent point:




Once again to refer to my favorite athiest American writer, Mark Twain. His short story, "War Prayer", addresses just this issue. It is a scathing indictment of war, and particularly of blind patriotic and religious fervor as motivations for war.
....When praying for your troops to win and succeed, you are in the same breath praying for the death and distruction of your enemy. Is it "good" for a god to answer this prayer?

The War Prayer - by Mark Twain.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/twain/warpray.htm

Exatly my point. You have to believe in "gods" and "magic" to believe in any of this. But, If you believe in those two things, what won't you beleive?

I dropped my animal # down to 2,500 (reasonable, right?). Still outlandish. (your right, I don't know where the 300 million came from...i read it in a few pubs and went with it) Regarless - without magic 8people managing (2,500 x 2)animals?

BTW... What happend when they unloaded? How did the carnivors eat on a daily basis without rendering other "Kinds" of animals extinct?

Again, to quote My favorite American Athiest writer, Mark Twain, "Faith is beliving what you know aint true"

Of course I don't believe in any of that. Like I said, fairy tails....I'm not really pissed at anything. I was just making a point.

I know there was only supposed to be 8, that is my point. There are more food service specialist on a aircraft carrier than that....and they are increadibly efficiant. Tell me it would take only 8 to feed, and maintain all the needs of, say 5000 (only 2,500 species) animals.

The numbers keep getting smaller. The justifications more finite. Tell you what...you tell me what happened. I'll tell you if it sounds remotely reasonable, or not. Although, you should be doing that for yourself.

There have been lots of "flood stories" thoughout time. Example may be the "Epic of Gilgamesh". The account of Noah's adventure is neither the only nor the oldest such legend.

This quick synopsis is all I will argue.
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/flood_myth.html

Otherwise, I have presented pleanty of sensible arguments. All of witch you have rejected. While you have given me outlandish explanations (such as "one kind of animal") and I still tried to work with those..showing how unreasonable even they are.

It's simple. Read and understand the informaion given. Then stop to think what would have to happen for this to be true. You do it with other religions. (say...Muhammed flying to God on a winged horse...given your logic...that was a specise of horse at that time.) Now simply apply the same thought process to your own religion. Does it stand up?

Ok…so same calculation….but with 100 million (x .0001), instead of 300 million. One minute per animal (very generous). It would still take over 4 months 24X7 for them to board the ship, if they were all standing right there. A total of 8 months added to the trip, simply in loading and unloading animals, no supplies. I couldn’t even imagine the amount of supplies you would need to support that cargo.

Regardless…. You are talking about a science and engineering feat not possible today, and an obnoxiously large crew (I’m talking 1000’s….witch just adds to the complication…sleeping quarters, logistics, food, water, and waist) the Idea of loading and maintaining a ship that can hold that hold that many animals is completely out of the realm of possibility, especially when you take the measurements of the ark, that are in the bible.

A Nimitz class (Nuclear powered) aircraft carrier can only hold up to 90 aircraft and needs a crew of 3,000 to 5,000 people to function. They only have to maintain themselves and machinery. And they need a whole lot of “support” ships to keep them supplied with the things they need, such as food.

…..and the “One Kind” of animal argument, is biologically unsound.

Giving the benefit of the doubt, how can you not see that this argument is reaching for an explanation, at best? ….in reality, this story is a fairy tale and completely made up.

Again, I dislike arguing the Noah story….just for this reason. I might as well be debating whether Hercules was really born out of an affair with a mortal woman and a god. (Sound familiar?) There is no point. It’s ridiculous to even consider.

I’m still pissed at the god for drowning all the children in the Noah story, and killing innocent peoples first born children because of pharaoh’s stubbornness. Does nothing to the pharaoh….but takes it out on innocent people…and their children.

If there were such a thing as Satan….how would you discern between this behavior and Satins? That behavior is about as evil as it gets.