josephw vs. Atheism

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again its very simple. Perfection is relative. Let me qualify my statement, if you please. Sin ensued, sin is simply imperfection, thus at present bad things happen, as a direct consequence of sin. Gods is perfect, exists outside the ravages of time and thus while he remains perfect. The system in which we find ourselves, having been subject to fu ...[text shortened]... state, that if there was no sin, there would be no imperfection and bad things would not happen.

Perfection is relative? Excuse me, robbie, but if there is one thing that is not relative, it is perfection. Perfection is absolute. And a supposedly perfect god cannot create a system which is imperfect, or capable of becoming imperfect (which is itself an imperfection). If the system in which we find ourselves is imperfect, then it is because it was created by an imperfect god (assuming it was created by a god at all). A god who necessarily lacks one or more of the omni attributes.

Originally posted by rwingett
Perfection is relative? Excuse me, robbie, but if there is one thing that is not relative, it is perfection. Perfection is absolute. And a supposedly perfect god cannot create a system which is imperfect, or capable of becoming imperfect (which is itself an imperfection). If the system in which we find ourselves is imperfect, then it is because it wa ...[text shortened]... it was created by a god at all). A god who necessarily lacks one or more of the omni attributes.

yes in the case of God it is absolute, but not in our own. For example if you were perfect, clearly you should be able to score a break at snooker of 147 every time, but that is not the case for there are so many contingencies, perhaps you have no aptitude for the game, despite being in a state of perfection, thus making it, in the case of humans, relative. The system that we find ourselves in was initially perfect, free of sin, but it has been subject to futility on the basis of sin, that is not to say that it will remain permanently so, thus no one can claim that its imperfect, for we are subject to the constraints of time and cannot see the future.

Originally posted by rwingett
Perfection is relative? Excuse me, robbie, but if there is one thing that is not relative, it is perfection. Perfection is absolute. And a supposedly perfect god cannot create a system which is imperfect, or capable of becoming imperfect (which is itself an imperfection). If the system in which we find ourselves is imperfect, then it is because it wa ...[text shortened]... it was created by a god at all). A god who necessarily lacks one or more of the omni attributes.

I feel your pain.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I feel your pain.

please see above, its a rather insolent fellow who replys to a matter before having heard the full of it, dont you think? But hey, it has never stopped you before.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
please see above, its a rather insolent fellow who replys to a matter before having heard the full of it, dont you think? But hey, it has never stopped you before.

What sort of fellow assumes that I had not already read it?

My condolences were in response to the thread in general, though I must say that it was your latest response to RW that drove me to extend them.

Originally posted by Doward
Many of the challenges we face, we have not triumph over [b]yet.[/b]

How do you triumph over a challenge you have already lost? Are you going to, at some future date, win every chess game you have ever lost in you life? Impossible. You cannot turn back time.

Originally posted by rwingett
Perfection is relative? Excuse me, robbie, but if there is one thing that is not relative, it is perfection. Perfection is absolute. And a supposedly perfect god cannot create a system which is imperfect, or capable of becoming imperfect (which is itself an imperfection). If the system in which we find ourselves is imperfect, then it is because it wa ...[text shortened]... it was created by a god at all). A god who necessarily lacks one or more of the omni attributes.

I guess thats where free will comes in.
We're free to make mistakes and learn to get "back to the garden" but fully conciously .
Free will is one of the key factors, if not the most important factor, that makes us capable of evolving spiritually.
Seems the human race has made its mistakes and these experiences have been inserted into our collective unconciousnesses so that future generations can draw upon these experiences and not have to make those mistakes themselves.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How do you triumph over a challenge you have already lost? Are you going to, at some future date, win every chess game you have ever lost in you life? Impossible. You cannot turn back time.

"God" tries to set up a win/win situation for all beings.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I guess thats where free will comes in.
We're free to make mistakes and learn to get "back to the garden" but fully conciously .
Free will is one of the key factors, if not the most important factor, that makes us capable of evolving spiritually.
Seems the human race has made its mistakes and these experiences have been inserted into our collective ...[text shortened]... e generations can draw upon these experiences and not have to make those mistakes themselves.

Free will is incompatible with an omniscient and omnipotent god.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How do you triumph over a challenge you have already lost? Are you going to, at some future date, win every chess game you have ever lost in you life? Impossible. You cannot turn back time.

I can in the future win every chess game... in the future...hence the word yet. The fact that you even bothering arguing over this point shows how weak your position is.

Originally posted by Doward
I can in the future win every chess game... in the future...hence the word [b]yet. The fact that you even bothering arguing over this point shows how weak your position is.[/b]

So if my position was stronger, I should act like Dasa and refuse to even make any points? I should merely assert that I am correct and everyone else is a liar? What sort of argument is that? The fact that you even made that point shows how weak your position is.

I will ask you again: can you win a game of chess you have already lost? Now see if you can actually answer the question.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So if my position was stronger, I should act like Dasa and refuse to even make any points? I should merely assert that I am correct and everyone else is a liar? What sort of argument is that? The fact that you even made that point shows how weak your position is.

I will ask you again: can you win a game of chess you have already lost? Now see if you can actually answer the question.

😴

yours is a poor illustration and in no way makes my point any less valid

Originally posted by rwingett
Free will is incompatible with an omniscient and omnipotent god.

prove your assertion...if you can.

Originally posted by Doward
prove your assertion...if you can.

That could start with an exploration of the concept of free will. What is will, and what is free will free of, exactly? The immediate, apparently obvious answers need examination. It's not so easy.

Originally posted by Doward
😴

yours is a poor illustration and in no way makes my point any less valid

Your point is not valid. I have pointed out an obvious error and you refuse to address it. I guess that is because you believe addressing a point proves the weakness in an argument.