Which makes more sense:
-that an all knowing, all powerful, and supremely loving, perfect being would bring into existance children which he knew before creating them, due to being all knowing, would not choose him with their free will and then would be pillaged, raped, destroyed, and burn in hell for eternity, or that a culture back in the day made a religion that justified their rape, pillage, and taking over of their neighbor’s lands?
-that an all knowing, all powerful, perfect being needs imperfect beings to serve him and sing his praises for eternity, or that a culture back in the day wasn’t sure what would happen when they died, and being welcomed into the presence of a perfect being and surrounded by all their buddies for eternity sounded good?
that people don’t know how to interpret the Bible, or that interpretation changes with the needs/beliefs of the culture you live in?
that religious stories are literally real or that they are a venue to pass down cultural knowledge of food preparation, work habits, sexual activity, and social activities which have helped the culture survive?
that any imperfection can even indirectly result from a perfect being, or that the religion’s human creators had terrible logic skills?[/quote]
Oh brother, another know it all atheist.
Which makes more sense some thing from something or something from nothing? Because if you are atheist you must necessarily believe that something can come from nothing.
This has been discussed like a trillion times it always boils down to the above and nothing else. It always ends up with some atheistic tortured logic where square pegs fit into round holes because they cannot accept that logically something cannot come from nothing. Simply because nothing literally does not exist and what does not exist has no properties, particularly creative properties…
I may just sit back and watch people sodomize very basic simple logic… [/quote]
and here we go with the circular cosmological argument. i leave here for months and you still sing the same tune every time someone puts a quarter in the jukebox. this place is utterly boring, although i did enjoy our prior thread…for a little while. [/quote]
I don’t see a gun to your head. The argument isn’t circular. If you believe it’s circular it means you don’t understand the argument. It’s a linear argument and perfectly deductively sound.
And I am hopelessly predictable because I don’t need anything else. We can take an ontological position, but you need to know your metaphysics well to understand it.[/quote]
We did this for pages before and it was a stalemate. Brighter men than both of us have done it and reached a similar result. Hell, there was a TV program on recently where a panel of theologist and scientists debated the whole CA and related issues. You cannot prove your premise. And therefore, there is nothing “perfect” about it, other than it’s a perfectly deductive conclusion from an imperfect or unknown/unknowable premise.
I’m not doing this with you again. I respect your intellectual prowess and have even grown to “like” you. I’m bored with it and we exhausted it the last time. Obviously, you have more stamina than I b/c you’re about to do it again. Enjoy