TO Spider:

Erroneous. The first thing you stated was God created the universe which is your presupposition. The non sequitur is you stating "therefore, God created time" which doesn't follow from the previous claim you made about space and time. You never said that "the universe" is only space and time. That's why your counter argument is erroneous. Thanks.

More presuppositionalism. Your basic argument consists of time and space exist and are meaningfully linked, therefore God created time. The philosophy professor would call that a non sequitur.

It's a presuppositional nightmare of a question! So many hidden premises!

Define God. Prove God exists. Prove God is able to do anything much less create the universe. Prove the universe was created in the first place. Without these in place, you can't formulate a valid argument. Therefore, the question itself is invalid.

That's what I would've told your professor. That, and will this be on the final?

Careful. Not all scientific studies are created equal. You have to take into account each ones' inherent limitations, validity, reliability and generalizability due to study design, variables used, controls employed, methods of data collection and interpretation, etc.

A very well controlled study on intercessory prayer and medical outcomes was performed by the Mayo Clinic, and it found NO significant effect on patient medical outcomes following hospitalization at a coronary care unit. The other studies I know of were poorly designed and not well controlled thus limiting their scientific value.

I think there was a recent study indicating that people actually developed worse health outcomes following intercessory prayer. Unfortunately, I don't remember the specifics. Nevertheless, correlation does not imply causation, so I'm suspicious of these types of studies anyway.

Sounds like he's walking.

Church of Beer and Latter Day Pranks

To be clear. This was advice for men, and not eunuchs?

"Oh, my liver."

Wait a sec. Brumalia and Eoster were the names of the festivals that preceded Christmas and Easter, respectively. They didn't worship the Judeo-Christian God. Those were pagan celebrations. So, why don't we all just calm down, and keep celebrating our rich pagan heritage? Now ya know, and knowing is half the battle.

Hmmm...UFO's, aliens, and demons...Oh my.

We need to wake up to the fact that our government and media are being run by a highly intelligent, technologically advanced race of Velociraptors. And for the people who think people's memories and sense experiences are fallible and malleable, get a life. And for the people who think hallucinations and "spiritual encounters" are byproducts of occipitotemporal lobe dysfunctions, get a clue. The Velociraptors are among us! Right now! Uh-oh. I've said too much. OMG, they found me....................

Fortunately, as the bear was praying, the atheist grabs a rock, and smashes the bear's skull in. Thank God for smart atheists.

TO Feral:

I'm not being disrespectful to the believers by posting this, but archaeological evidence indicates that the ancient Hebrews were originally polytheists. They eventually went to monolatry before becoming monotheists. Hope that helps.

TO Perhaps:

Thanks for your input.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but I mean no offense toward you. I respect your personal beliefs; however, I want you to know why I don't find your arguments convincing.

First off, I fail to see how the situation is analogous to child rearing or "trying to pound" anything into anyone as if that's something desirable or even necessary. Here are the major issues I have:

Why is God defined as an impersonal diety and then a personal diety as the situation suits the Christian? It seems like a bunch of equivocation and ad hoc arguments to me for one to claim that in this instance God is a type of father figure ready to dish out disciplinary action however he sees fit, but then in these other cases God is the "unmoved mover", the "uncaused cause", the "unknowable knowable", the "unplanned planner", "omni this and omni that", etc. It seems that if one claims that God exists one must clearly and sufficiently define it to someone who is without previous understanding of what attributes constitute this particular diety. Is he personal (A) or impersonal (not A)? Logic dictates something can't be both A and not A.

Further, to answer you question, IMO I think this diety would be a petty, vindictive, sadistic, unloving father not a just or loving one. Ultimately, to this father, a 12 y/o who shoplifts a pack of gum and a dictator whose responsible for 12 million deaths is deserving of the same punishment if they lack a belief in Jesus. That has no semblance of justice or love since justice implies a sense of fairness and reason, and love a sense of caring, forgiveness and affection.

Moreover, why is there an infinite amount of punishment, i.e. hell for so called sins committed over a finite period of time, i.e. a human life span? Again, how is that justice or love?

Finally, if hell is punishment, then where's the instruction? By definition, punishment implies a penalty with an instructive purpose to it. How does eternal damnation accomplish this purpose?



According to scripture, won't God do whatever you ask in Jesus' name? I think that appears in all four canonical gospels. Since you asked, then shouldn't nonbelievers be forgiven? Why not take the next step and ask God to extinguish the flames of hell and let us into heaven, too?



Matters of preference. No argument here.



I meant "pay" as reparations for crimes committed against others. I think that's the main role of our judicial system, and why legislators enact laws to protect and punish citizens that choose to harm others. I'm not sure where your argument was going. Please clarify.



I can't rationally argue against your claims because I don't presume God(s) exist nor do I presume people have been telling God(s) to leave. I'll step down from that one with respect.

TO Abra and Anoasis:


TO ANYONE WHO CARES TO ANSWER:

Has any Christian (praying in Jesus name of course) ever asked God to extinguish the flames of hell? If not, why not? He's supposedly "all loving", "all good" and "all powerful". Is that beyond even him?

Why not give the nonbelievers a break, ask God to forgive us as many of you seem to do everyday, and let us in heaven when we die? Or do many of you need the doctrine of hell to feel vindicated for the wrongs done to you in life? Does someone have to pay? If so, why?

For an omnibenevolent, omniamorous, omnipotent, and omniscient being to fault me for my rational disbelief, and toss me into a lake of fire and brimstone for eternity seems rather bizarre and reprehensible. I would think this God of yours would be smart enough, capable enough and loving enough to realize how critically minded yet reasonable I am. And as such, given me the necessary and sufficient evidence to warrant belief in him and his son Jesus--unless he really doesn't want a "relationship" with me, and prefers I go to hell. That seems like a pretty evil thing to do though. Hmmm...

TO Redy:

I don't know much about Greek etymology. Are you saying that Koine Greek did not have singular and plural first person pronouns? Hence, the writer of Matthew would not have used words denoting "I" or "we". So, are they a Modern Greek invention, and therefore anachronistic to first century Palestine?

Any references are appreciated.

Sorry for interrupting the thread.

Hmmm...Can we really claim to "know" anything? Is there ever 100% certainty? Could we all be just "brains in vat" with all of our memories and sense-experiences being fed to us by some evil scientist? Could I be the only real person while all of you are merely figments of my imagination?

At some point, these types of questions or conjectures become impractical, useless red herrings. IMO.

Well, back to the Matrix.

Viorar Vel Til Loftarasa by Sigur Ros