Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: [coCBanned] Re: Apparent age

Expand Messages
  • PIASAN@aol.com
    ... From: PIASAN@aol.com To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 6:17 pm Subject: Re: [coCBanned] Re: Apparent age W here, i wants to quibble and
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 30, 2010
      -----Original Message-----
      From: PIASAN@...
      To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 6:17 pm
      Subject: Re: [coCBanned] Re: Apparent age

      W here,

      i wants to quibble and squirm away from my argument.
      ell, one of us is quibbling.... it isn't me.

      **** previously ****
      rather doubt that Pi even believes Jesus could instantly make loaves or wine.
      he principle is the same. Oh wait, he told us that Jesus could make
      Roman coin that looked like other Roman coins...but JUST if it looked
      freshly minted"! How absurd.
      his is like the question "Could God make a mountain He could not move?"
      "COULD" God do it? Yes.
      WOULD He do it? No.
      **** end previous comments ****
      o, if it is DECEPTIVE as you say, to make a coin that does NOT look freshly
      inted...then God COULD NOT do it. God cannot lie. He cannot do evil.
      hen you have an entirely different concept of what "omnipotent" means than I

      o unless you want to discuss what some EVIL god COULD do, what I said about
      our view is the right way to say it.
      o. My way is the right way to say it. An omnipotent being can do whatever He
      ants to do. That is the very essence of omnipotence. Since an omnipotent
      eing can do whatever He wants, the question then becomes one of what He WOULD
      o, not what he CAN do.

      ometimes, just to try to pin you down more so you won't try to squirm away, I
      ill say "Can God create______ WITHOUT SINNING" but this time I didn't. It
      sn't necessary to say it each time or EVER since God cannot do something evil
      hat contradicts His nature. So to Pi, God CANNOT make a coin that looks like
      very other coin in the marketplace, and he CANNOT make a tree with rings TODAY
      f He wanted to, nor a rounded rock, etc., etc., etc.
      o. God CAN do all of those things. The restriction isn't on what God CAN do,
      t's on what He WOULD do.

      ** Pi ((previously)) ***
      n the case of the objects we've been talking about, it would be a deception and
      ontradictory to His nature. In the case of the mountain, it would be irrational
      s it creates a conflict with His nature.
      ight...so HE COULD NOT. That is your position.
      o. Let me say it again.... God CAN do whatever he wants. That is the nature
      f omnipotence. What God CAN do and what He WILL do are different things.

      ut that is absurd because it is based on your flawed philosophy about what the
      efinition of deception is.
      y "flawed philosophy" is that we should use the standard dictionary
      efinition.... even when speaking of God. It is you, not I who is trying to
      hange that due to your "flawed philosophy."
      (short snip))

      David ((previously))
      ow did Jesus get the gold in the coin that appeared in the fish's mouth
      ithout first having a supernova make it?
      i ((previously)):
      ust in case David is unaware of the last 50 or so years of nuclear physics, we
      ave manufactured some 20 elements without supernovae.
      hat a stupid argument. So maybe I should have said "...without a supernova OR
      ll the modern equipment needed today to make gold?" How does it somehow
      ullify my argument to point out that gold can be made in a lab as well as being
      ined from the Earth? Tell me Pi...do the substances they USE to make the gold
      n a lab (supposedly) come from a supernova TOO???
      irst: Why would God need modern equipment?
      econd: I don't know if we have made gold from lighter elements or not. My
      oint is that we know how to do it without a supernova. From a technological
      tandpoint, the gold could be built up from hydrogen atoms. No materials from a
      upernova are necessay.

      hy isn't it also deceptive of Jesus to make a coin even if it looks freshly
      inted, but also appears to be made of normal gold that came from mining from
      he ground, that came from a supernova, OR that came from modern equipment.
      ecause it is still gold. Therefore, it has the same value as any other gold

      oes there have to be a little sign on the gold that says "this gold was
      iraculously made" in order for Pi to not defame Jesus as being a deceiver?
      ince the coin would be new (ie: recently created), it should look new (ie: not
      ave the wear typical of coins in circulation).

      ** previously ***
      hy is there a philosophical "bridge too far" that forces you to say that God
      annot make a grain of sand that looks like others or a rounded rock
      ut it is NOT too far in your mind to say He can make grains of ground up flour
      nside a loaf of bread...which were never really ground up? Or that He
      an shape a gold coin as if it was made round by a Roman's minting process
      when it really wasn't) but He cannot make a rounded rock shaped by a
      iver's process?
      t's the philosophical flip side of your "bridge too far" that says God can
      ave us see light from stars that didn't exist and supernova events that
      idn't take place without being deceptive.
      ********* end previous comments ****
      noticed you have no answer to my question. Why are grains of sand different
      han grains of ground up flour? God CAN make one but not the
      ou have my answer.... we're talking about a philosophical difference. I have
      o idea what differences you would expect in the flour, but it is worth note
      hat I have the exact same criteia for the coin as for the rock.

      Pi ((previously):
      avid did that when he called me a "coward" just because I don't feel like
      ealing with yet another of his silly examples despite my having
      ddressed a number of them previously.
      ou ARE BEING foolish to try to distinguish between my saying "you have done a
      owardly thing in this instance" and saying "you are a coward". I'm
      ot commenting on other ways you might show courage or cowardice. Maybe you
      rove that bulldozer close to a dead tree that could fall on you. That would
      e either courageous OR stupid.
      was taking it in the context of this instance. I have addressed a number of
      imilar examples put forward by you previously and I see nothing to be gained by
      ddressing on a case-by-case basis each and every miracle you can think up that
      od might choose to perform. In other words, it isn't cowardice.

      David ((previously)):
      mmmm...you just now said you already HAD answered the rounded rock question.
      ow you say you didn't.
      i ((previously)):
      he point stands I have dealt with a number of your silly examples previously.
      see no need to address every single example of a potential
      iracle you can think up.
      hat is another point. The point of my comment was that you told an untruth to
      ay you had answered that already. I know I wouldn't be allowed to
      et away with dodging a question by pretending I had answered it if I hadn't.
      t could be I was wrong about responding to the rounded rock example before.
      ow I have addressed it.
      (( Pi snips stuff about "lamebrained" that has moved to a different subject
      eader. ))))

      Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      Yahoo! Groups Links
      Individual Email | Traditional

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.