Hey JCG,

E.W. Bullinger - Figures of Speech. A very common reference work.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Hi JCG,

Yes, look under anthropomorphism, Zoomorphism, personification, etc. I

I challenged Gregory Boyd to a debate one time regarding this. He is an Open Theist Pastor in Minesotta I think and a professor at Bethel Seminary or Bible College.

His assistant said no while they ran away like little girls.

Open Theism believes that there is no such thing as future. Only past and present. So God did repent and does plan things. He wakes up, tells the Holy Spirit, Wakey Wakey, Eggs and Bakey, and gets dressed, and becomes God from 9-5. Though He is the smartest mathematician according to Boyd, so His predictions are something one can depend on, but they are not absolute.

Greg Boyd is a heretic and a pagan going to hell.

Anyway, my point is that this mistake happens a lot. People don't know anything about Figures of Speech.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Jean, in what sense do we have 'the likeness of God'?

Curious, since you claim your whole belief system is based on this phrase,

Isn't the soul simply Platonism sneaking in?

No, humans invent gods that reflect the culture of their time.

Xenophanes:

Isn't it funny that Muhammed wears a turban and Allah hates rivils, just like Muslims do?

If you look at depictions of Jesus in ancient Italy he has Italian features. If you look at Jesus depicted in Germany he has blond hair and blue eyes.

If you look at Jesus in South American art he is depicted with brown hair and brown eyes.

And even outside the issue of gods, we change celebrity and politicians depictions to suit our own desires. Washington's real face was not the more square chin we see on the dollar bill. More accurate art from his time would reflect a more realistic image.

Humans want their heros, fake or real, to reflect their own desires.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires" Susan B, Anthony

Cite you peer reviewed source to back you claim. You will NOT find 1.

You are not trained in 'geometry', Professor of Lolgic.

I am.

So STFU, and listen to me, dufus.

A little bit of geometry 101, and a little bit of 'common understanding' (empiricism), that is 'mathematically' sound, and 'physically' sound.

Shapes and curves are what 'we' (humans) define as geometry. The set of shapes (surfaces, fields, fabrics) and curves (single, poly) that exist, are 'narratively' identified by humans as 'geometry'.

Shapes and curves occur naturally, by no intelligent 'means' necessary.

We (humans) 'narratively' identify natural occurrences as 'things', or 'incidents', or 'accidents', or 'events'.

A single 'curve' is geometry.  A 'line' is a curve, be it straight, or not.  A curve can be 'open' (open ended, and 'seemingly' endless), or 'closed' (no end, no beginning).

2 curves that are 'joined' by a single end of the 2 curves, is a 'polycurve'. A polycurve can be 'open' (open ended, and can be 'seemingly' endless), or 'closed' (no end, no beginning).

Similar or dissimilar curves occur on top of each other naturally. What 'we' (humans) narratively identify as 'surfaces', or 'fields', or 'fabric'.

A single surface can be 'open' (open ended, and can be 'endless'), or 'closed' (no end, no beginning).

What 'we' (humans) narratively identify as a 'sphere' (perfect or imperfect) is a single 'surface' (or field or fabric).

What 'we' (humans) narratively identify as a 'torus' (perfect or imperfect) is a single 'surface' (or field or fabric).

That's by nature alone.

No 'intelligence' necessary.

Period.

End.

Stop.

Add another natural (no intelligence necessary) occurrence, incident, accident, event, what 'we' (humans) narratively identify as 'chemistry', and you get natural 'monomers', and 'polymers', which are the building blocks of life (biology).

There is NO debate, that these occur naturally.

Just 'argumentation'.

It has NEVER been falsified that these 'occurences', 'incidents', 'accidents', 'events' are not natural.

Period.

End.

Stop.

That concludes todays, lesson.

So, what the fuck do you 'know' that's FACT, Professor of Lolgic?

N O T  T O O  F U C K I N G  M U C H

Respectfully, redneF

Actually, funny man is correct. He is using "is" to mean "exists," which is not wrong, just quaint. "Cat is" would be different, because "cat" is not a specific thing, unless you are talking about something named "Cat." In other words, "god is" (with a lowercase g) is improper, because you aren't specifying a thing that you claim exists, but "God is," where "God" is a proper noun describing a specific god (most likely YHWH), is grammatical (although untrue).

It's like "I think, therefore I am," where "am" means "exist." There isn't a predicate nominative when "to be" is being used in that way.

I think Jean should do stand up comedy.  Like that Ahmed character, he can be the Christian version.

Ummm, I didn't say it was 'incorrect'. I said it was 'arguable'.

I'm not going to look it up, but, if I recall correctly, 'is' is a participle, or 'dangling participle'.

God is a 'name', and a 'thing'.

It's all just linguistic and semantic bullshit, and naked assertions, anyways.

It is...

Trust that it is...

God impinges directly on all of reality, a six-foot hot-dog is a very local phenomenon. Its that simple.

The actual world has contingencies and dependencies which are vastly beyond our capacity to envisage, let alone 'know', so any 'possible worlds' or modal argument is only addressing, and can only address a grossly, simplified model of what IS.

And as Platinga says, the best you can hope to do is establish whether a proposition is reasonable, maybe plausible.

A Theist will claim certain knowledge of a God, so within that context, they can claim a proof, but it is actually contingent on the assumption about reality embodied in the claim 'God exists'.

So now you concede that your argument can only establish, at best, the 'reasonableness' of the proposition that 'God necessarily exists'.

Thank you.

If you merely have a claim, then you merely have a claim.

You merely have a claim.

If you have evidence, which supports your claim, then you have evidence which supports your claim.

You merely have a claim.

What do you mean 'impinges on all of reality'?  

Are you ever going to give a coherent explanation for your assertion that your sig quote is illogical? I read through the thread where you were talking about it, and I honestly still can't figure out what you think is wrong with it. Please walk me through that.

You love to strawman, don't you.

Here's the CORRECT transposing.

The signature is only illogical because you say it is illogical, but that is not sufficient reason to believe that it is illogical.

AFAICS, presented out of the original context, the first part doesn't quite make sense, because you are missing the rhetorical setting:

All you're doing is propagating the fact that you like fallacies in your sig. The one in your sig is called quote mining

I should start keeping score as to who use the most fallacies between you and Jean.

Ya, I don't know why Mr_M thinks it some 'checkmate atheist' victory, when it wasn't a dissertation, it was simply a reply, that he may have not been able to got back and edit.

I mean, we saw Mr_M  admit right out in the open, that he was quoting my whole posts simply to prevent me from editing anything I typed, and was childishly boasting about it.

Anyone with half a brain understands that what ubutu meant was that 'Saying it's true, does not make it true'.

Whereas the OA, and the KCA and TAG have their foundations in millenia old navel gazing, and they simply don't hold water.

I agree that your quote was a logical fallacy.  Thank you for that concession.

By the way, what's with the Han Solo Penguin?  Is that supposed to be cute or funny?  Are you supposed to seem more sophisticated by having it there?  I mean, it's bad enough you have a name like 'ubuntuAnyone', but you top it off with the worst avatar I've ever seen?

I never made a concession that my statement was a fallacy... I said you like fallacies...

But that aside, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I say you like fallacies:

1.) You read into something and twist peoples words to make them say something that they don't (That's quote mining AGAIN!).

2.) Your statement about my avatar is a red herring.

3.) And your judgement about my name and my avatar is an ad hominem fallacy.

I think you're winning the fallacy contest against Jean. Jean may be a nutjob, but your just a poor debater. You're arguments are not sound, you make fallacies, and go for style over substance.

Yep. Pretty much the reasons why I use a penguin Han Solo and have "ubuntu" in my name... and I love his quote about religion too.

Hello,

This is funny then funny. An atheist corrects Rednef on my grammar being right. LOL. Another example why I creamed you REd in those debates. If you want another debate where I have all the burden, I'm here for you.

Bend won't agree because he's an atheist, but he agrees with grammar. He must be a grammarian. Good observation Bend.

Now, Rednef, did you say geometry was empirical? This is absurd. Geometry by definition is non empirical (specially, Euclidian geometry). If one starts deductively (empiricism is always inductive, and if one starts with axioms (empiricism never starts with axioms, but particulars), then we are dealing with the antithesis of empiricism.

LOL.

You don't know what you are talking about. I'm Axiomatic, but i include time and space unlike Euclid.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Can God Hate?

Let's explore the original OP. For some reason, atheists lose track of things and change the subject and often they go nuts. So let's explore the Biblical position.

First off, virtually 99% of all Christians would emotionally disagree with this. When one (like me) would demonstrate this from the text, their atheistic infiltrations kick in and they say, oh, it doesn't really mean that. Then they say if pressed, well, that's your interpretation.

So we see that absurdity of atheism has crept in Chrisitanity (Jude 3).

But let's look at some of the text.

As originally states, Romans 9:13 says that God hated Esau .When we look at Genesis where this happened. we see that God hated Esau (before he was even born). So if God hated Esau, is that it?

But the hate that God has is not the same hate that we have typically speaking. It is a righteous hate regarding wickedness and evil. And since people like Brian are evil to the very very core (Jer. 17:3, Is. 64:6, Rom. 3:10-12), then it is only logical to hate the wicked.

As a result, wimpy Christians have made up a liberal saying. It goes something like this:

"God does not hate the sinner, He hates the sin."

This is nowhere found in Scripture. Atheism and our country's status is really the unpaid bills of the church.

But we also see in Psalms 139:21-22 where David hated His enemies. God honored this and caused David's enemies to be defeated.

More could be said on this (a lot more), but I find that Christians shy away at the truth.

Hell is evil. God created hell. And the evil created will be for the evil doers such as Sapient and that red head girl he dated at the kirk and Ray debate.

Her hair may match the flames that engluf you both.

But before that happens, let's have a beer. Where do you live Sapient?

I will explore more deeply this issue if the Lord allows on here. But for now, God does hate righteously, and He may hate you.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Jean, since your ultimate justification is your particular interpretation of what a bunch of people whose knowledge of reality has long been shown to be way incomplete and inaccurate, who couldn't even get the whole collection of writings to be consistent, why should anyone here take you seriously? You surely realize that every time you quote scripture to justify your assertions, you just make yourself look even more ridiculous?

We base our world-views on interpretations of reality itself, not the second-hand interpretations of interpretations you do. Ours are not perfect, and neither are yours, since we both must employ our finite and fallible minds and senses, but at least we a step closer to Reality than you.

Reality is the Ultimate Reference Point.

It's absurd to Jean because it doesn't come from the Bible. You know that great geometry book that sets pi equal to 3.