General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder
comments

Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Ben Shapiro’s ‘God’s Laws’ Argument Falls Apart Spectacularly" video.

Not really a "whim". Religion has a problem with free will and knowing the future. Those two things are incompatible. If their god knows the future, anything he creates can't actually choose to deviate from that known future. Furthermore, the god itself wouldn't be able to deviate from what it knows it will do. Knowing the future kills free will and omnipotence.
59
@mickelcsaszar3244 That's basically the definition of hypocrisy ... my people can do it, but you can't. A god's laws aren't objective. They're based on that god's subjectivity, and people just accept them as absolute. It's not all that different than any dictator .. anything they say is good is good, and anything they say is bad is bad. If they order genocide, it's good. If they say it's okay to own slaves, it's good. If they say those people are bad, they're bad. If they say doing X is bad, then doing X is bad. Etc. Etc. According to the book, he literally orders bashing people's heads in with rocks, if they do multiple other things wrong, and spits out over 600 laws about what to do, and what not to do. Ordering to bash someone's head in, for collecting firewood on a Saturday, but not ordering to bash someone's head in, for owning other people, seems morally bankrupt.
9
@Bramble451 For there to be a point of creation, there needs to be a point when there's no creation. At the point of no creation, if the god knows the future of everything he will create, then the creations can't deviate, from that, once created. At that point, he would also know how he will interact with the thing he hasn't created yet, and won't be able to change his mind, once it's created.
8
@halinaqi2194 Was I replying to a theist? I don't really expect people brainwashed from birth to change their minds about much. So, the actual bits you said, relevant to what I said, is that there's no point to it all, because all choices are made? So, still no free will, because I've taken all the possible choices. And ... God has made all possible choices? So, still no free will, for him either.
8
@dan91121 So, how does someone reinterpret a passage describing non-debt slavery, blatantly saying it's okay to buy foreign slaves, and own them for life? Leviticus 25:44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
6
@mickelcsaszar3244 The supposed exodus, and all the plagues on Egypt, to let them go? Doesn't ring a bell?
5
@JamesMorgan-ne8qu More specifically, that because they would be able to achieve anything, working together, implying the tower to Heaven was possible. Heaven should be hovering about 500' over Iraq somewhere.
5
@mickelcsaszar3244 So, governments are better at ending slavery, than a god.
4
@mickelcsaszar3244 I didn't say "you" can do this and "you" can't do that. I said "you" can't do that but "we" can do that. Hypocrisy: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel No slavery for thee, but slavery for me, is hypocrisy.
4
@mickelcsaszar3244 I most definitely am. You're just trying to justify the hypocrisy.
4
@halinaqi2194 Sadly, no coherent theists, so far.
4
@dan91121 Reparations are still plenty talked about, for example. How would thinking it's perfectly moral to own foreigners, for life, and pass them on as inheritance, not come into play, if considering whether reparations would be valid, or not?
3
@mickelcsaszar3244 So, god is a hypocrite. It should have been fine for Egypt to have foreign slaves.
3
@mickelcsaszar3244 God could have killed every firstborn sons of the Israelites, brought plagues, ordered stonings (like he did for numerous other things), etc., etc., etc., until they stopped slavery. Not like he wasn't willing to genocide the world, to end "evil", or anything. Could have just started yet a third time, and say "Oh, and extra rule, this time, that I forgot to tell Noah ... no slavery."
3
@mickelcsaszar3244 Seriously, all you're saying is that it's okay for your sky dictator to be a hypocrite, because whatever he says is right is right, and whatever he says is wrong is wrong.
3
@halinaqi2194 No. I do it to see if there's any good answers out there (like constantly trying to falsify a claim, to see if it holds), and for anyone reading, that's possibly unsure (so they don't dive into something crazy, without giving it some thought first).
3
@dan91121 Pretty sure there are still some people selling some other people, to this day. And we're talking less than 200 years ago, for institutionalized, well documented, routinely studied and judged, North American slavery. When discussed, and that passage is part of your worldview, how do you judge it?
2
@kise_ryota If a god knows what you are going to "choose", before creating you, that means, once created, you actually have zero ability to choose a different outcome, when apparent choices are presented.
2
@PathtoYahawah Rofl. You think DNA isn't factual?
2
@mickelcsaszar3244 God was running the countries he then claimed were "evil" and ordered genocided?
1
@mickelcsaszar3244 The OT god is not much different than a sky Hitler.
1
@mickelcsaszar3244 The book says he literally did just that, to Egypt, dumb dumb. Have you even read the book?
1
@kise_ryota How could you have possibly chosen to do anything else, if it was known you'd do it, before you were created. As the actual creation, you have zero ability to choose to do anything differently than what was already known, before you were created.
1
@kise_ryota For there to be a point of creation, that requires there to be a point of no creation, right? If not, then the thing they're claiming was created always existed, and no god is needed. Ok, so if that god knows everything that will happen, prior to creation, then once created, the creations can't do anything differently. And, yes, the god would also not be able to interact any differently than how it already knows it will interact. Take Adam. Adam hasn't been created, yet. The god knows that the Adam he is about to create will have insufficient willpower, will succumb to temptation, and will eat the fruit. The god then creates that Adam, with the insufficient willpower. Does the now created Adam actually have the option, the ability, to choose not to eat the fruit?
1
@kise_ryota I really don't care where the god is. For there to be a point of creation, that requires there be a point of no creation. That's just a logical necessity, because if there was never a point of no creation, then it always existed and didn't need creating. There's no possible way to maintain a creation narrative and dodge that. If the god knows what his non-existent creations will do, then once they're created they can't deviate from what he knows. Doesn't matter if he zaps the entire timeline into existence and sits outside it, or not. Prior to creating them, he would also know if any of them will ever interact with him. Still talking about the same subject. Creation + foreknowledge. You seem to keep trying to dodge the creation part, and only refer to the foreknowledge. The god hasn't created anything, yet, including Adam. He knows the Adam 1.0 design will fail his entrapment test. He knows the Adam 2.0 design will pass his entrapment test. He creates Adam 1.0 anyway. Can Adam 1.0 pass the test?
1
@PathtoYahawah Then it's true that people who claim both that they have free will, and that their creator knows the future, have a problem, loco!
1
@PathtoYahawah So, then absolutely nobody is denying g0d, or rbllng against g0d, etc., etc., since g0d programmed them that way. Why would the Bible use words like those then? Plus, you're acknowledging your g0d intentionally does "evil". Why worship "evil"?
1
@emgtexas You're leaving off that your g0d is a creator, not just an observer. IF a creator knows what its creation will do, before creating it ... THEN the creation can't possibly choose to do anything differently, once created.
1
@emgtexas "In our minds", "in our eyes", would be irrelevant to the truth. If, before day 6, g0d already knew Adam and Eve would eat the fruit, then once created, on day 6, they wouldn't have the ability to choose not to eat the fruit, or g0d would be wrong, and didn't actually know. Think of it like a willpower skill level. G0d could have created an Adam with an indomitable will, but instead knowingly created an Adam that he knew would fold like a cheap suit.
1
@emgtexas Yes, without free will, the whole thing makes no sense. But, it's just a fact, that if a creator knows his creation will do X, prior to creating it ... then, once created, the creation can't possibly not do X, or the creator would have been wrong, and didn't actually know.
1
@emgtexas And, I've heard that limiting himself argument before, but that also makes no sense. Prior to the point of deciding to limit himself, didn't he already know what would happen? It would create an infinite regression.
1
@emgtexas There is only a slight difference between "making us do it" and not giving us the ability to do otherwise. Like I said, if he knew the Adam he was about to create would fail, would be weak willed, that means he knowingly created an Adam that wouldn't have enough willpower to resist temptation. Once presented the choice, that Adam didn't have the willpower to resist temptation, and couldn't possibly do otherwise. He could have created an Adam with the willpower of Job, if he wanted, right? And, that Adam would then have lacked the ability to fail the temptation test, and couldn't have done otherwise.
1
@emgtexas Because you basically just keep asserting the premise I originally took issue with, without actually resolving the problem, putting us back to square 1. What we can know ... For there to be a point of creation, that means, by definition, there needs to be a point when the creation didn't exist, or it wouldn't need to be created in the first place. It is impossible for a thing that doesn't exist to make choices. If it is known what a creation will do, prior to it being created, then once created, the creation can't possibly do anything differently than what was known. For a casual observer of the future, that might not be an issue, but for the creator, that means they knowingly created an Adam and Eve that would fail ... that wouldn't have enough willpower to pass the test. Same would go for Satan. Point A: Satan doesn't exist, so can't have made any choices. G0d knows what Satan will be, and do. Point B: G0d still creates Satan. Satan can't possibly choose to be, or do, anything differently. G0d intentionally created Satan to do exactly what he wanted did. And, knew he would succeed at tempting Adam and Eve, because he also intentionally created them to be weak willed failures.
1
@emgtexas That is contradictory. Think of it like a game character creation. You can create a character and assign however many points you want (because you have a g0d mode cheat) to strength, dexterity, constitution, intelligence, willpower, etc. You know what challenges the character will face, in game, because you also created the game. Then, you knowingly don't assign enough willpower points to your character to pass the first in game willpower test. Then you start playing. Will the character be able to pass the test?
1
@emgtexas There's nothing flawed about it. I didn't say he was controlling your moves, like a game. I said he created the character. You believe in creation, right? You aren't now denying he does the character creation, are you? If Adam possessed enough willpower to pass the test, then he would have passed the test. G0d created a character he knew would fail, which means the character had no possible chance to succeed. It was an illusion of a choice. There's no possible way Adam could have passed the test, if it was known, before he was created, that he would fail the test.
1
@emgtexas What? Following the rules takes willpower (the ability to control one's own actions, emotions, urges). What? If other things can exist without a creator, besides the creator, then why can't we? You argued deception has nothing to do with us controlling our actions, and then argued it does. You've gone entirely inchrnt.
1
@emgtexas You claimed being deceived has nothing to do with willpower (self control), and then claimed deception led to sin (a violation of what g0d considers proper self control). G0d didn't have to create a tree with a forbidden fruit, and then stick it exactly in the only place, in the entire universe, where the only two humans existed. It was a test (entrapment), like leaving a bowl of candy in front of little kids, telling them not to eat any, or they'll be grounded, and leaving the room. It is entirely a test of willpower. Then have some stranger come along and tell the kids they don't have to listen to their parents, that they won't be grounded, to make it's even more challenging. It's a horrible setup, even leaving off that he created them, knowing they didn't have the ability to pass the test beforehand. Even if you want to make the odd argument that there could possibly be all kinds of other beings, maybe even other g0ds, that don't require being created ... The biblical g0d created Eden, and Adam and Eve, knowing full well that the snake (if that's what you're calling Satan) would show up. He didn't prevent it. He apparently didn't even warn them not to listen to talking snakes. He created the scenario, knowing exactly how it would play out. It couldn't have possibly played out any differently, than how he knew it would.
1
@emgtexas And I have tried to be respectful as all you've basically argued is that your g0d has incomprehensible magical thinking. Zero logical thought to actually solving the problem. According to Genesis 2, it took the dmwt g0d creating all the animals and birds in existence, before figuring out Adam might like another human being to help him. The dmwt g0d, knowing full well that Earth 1.0, starting with Adam was doomed to fail, and that he'd have to start over with Earth 2.0 and Noah, still went ahead with Earth 1.0. He could have just started with Noah, and Earth 2.0, in the first place. Etc. The biblical g0d isn't described as exceptionally bright, or good. Pretty much just a ruthless dcttr. If other beings can exist without requiring that g0d creating them, then what's your basis for claiming other g0ds can't also exist? "Middle aged"? He had just created them. There's no indication they had lived in the garden very long, at all. Plus, they were totally innocent, not knowing good or evil. They were child-like. Their father, never even warned them to avoid talking snakes. Rofl! You believe your all powerful g0d let things go down a road he didn't intend? Again, if he knew the Adam and Eve he was about to create, would get hoodwinked, then he could have chosen to make the smarter, chosen to give them some kind of innate sense that talking snakes are bad, chosen to give them unshakable wills, ... The possibilities are limitless, aren't they? You're turning your g0d into a lame duck ... Just had no ability to do things any other way. And yet, you haven't given a single realistic scenario that disproves it. I know the version Adam I am about to create will fail. I have the ability to create an infinite number of other versions, some amount of which would never fail. I have the power to toss the snake across the universe. I have the power to hide the tree across the universe. I still create the scenario, and version of Adam, that I know will fail. How is there any possibility of Adam not failing, once created? If there's no possibility for Adam to do otherwise, once created, then he never had an actual choice.
1
@emgtexas You said there could possibly be other powerful beings in existence that didn't require a g0d to create them. How can you then claim there can't possibly be other g0ds? If you've thrown away the core ... this one g0d created everything argument ... while still including the existence of magical beings, then you've opened things up to infinite possibilities. Adam and Eve had just been created. There's zero indication they were "middle aged", especially mentally. They were completely mentally innocent, not knowing good and evil, like little children. And yet, you've given zero realistic scenarios, that actually get around the problem. Your main argument is the good old, "g0d works in mysterious ways", you can't know how a g0d thinks, garbage. His thinking process is described, multiple times, in the Bible, and he's not described as being exceptionally bright. Scenario: A and B are planning to prank C, by A jumping out and startling C, while B videos it. Not long before the planned prank, B receives a text, from himself, from the future. It's the video of what happens. It shows C severely overreacting, tripping, falling down a flight of stairs, landing badly, and no longer living. If B does nothing, and remains an observer/recorder, things will go exactly the same way. A will never not startle C, and C will never react differently. If B truly does not want C to be unalived, they have the power to change the scenario. It's absolutely ridiculous, to claim g0d wanted any other outcome than the one he got. An all powerful being could have changed the scenario in any number of ways. Now, let's say B is actually a g0d, who created C. That means C didn't get traits through genetics or upbringing. C was created, by B, to be high strung and to overreact. Unless B changes their created tendencies, C will always react the way they reacted in the video. Even if B didn't want to change the scenario, B could design C differently, so that they don't overreact. If B changes nothing, C can't possibly do anything other than what was shown in the video from the future. In a debate about free WILL, you've argued WILLpower has nothing to do with it, which makes no sense. It has everything to do with it. If Adam never possessed enough will to resist temptation, then he never had the option to react differently. G0d both could have created a stronger Adam, and could have created a different scenario.
1
@emgtexas If you're claiming there could be other magical beings that exist, that don't require a g0d to create them, then you don't have grounds to claim other g0ds don't exist. Not that hard. How are days old creations, so innocent of thought that they don't need clothes, and don't know good and evil, at all like middle aged adults? I'm starting to wonder if you've even read the book. And yet you've given zero realistic scenarios that would allow for Adam to make a different choice, once created. In a debate about free WILL, you've argued WILLpower has nothing to do with it, indicating you don't even know what we're talking about.
1
@emgtexas Rofl. I didn't say that, at all. I was comparing g0d to the adult parent, who left the children alone with candy, myself. Why would I care if you compared a g0d to an adult? It's comparing newly created, completely innocent, people, to "middle aged" adults, that's nonsensical. Rofl. You used claiming it's possible g0d didn't create Satan, to dodge my previous point. Now you're claiming you do believe he created Satan. And, now you've resorted to claiming your g0d doesn't know the future of some beings, so isn't all powerful and all knowing. Yes, because it takes WILLpower to make a proper free WILL choice. If someone doesn't have the WILLpower, to override a potentially negative desire, to make a different choice, then they won't. What does it take to resist temptation, if not WILLpower? It's literally the definition.
1
@Asiyah2000 DNA does not prove that, at all. Yes, no coherent theist arguments still holds. You say your creator g0d gave free will. If your g0d can see the future, then that's impossible. If your g0d can't see the future, then there should be no g0d given prophecies.
1
@emgtexas First option: Again ... For there to be a point B of creation, that requires there being a point A of no creation. You're inventing a state of being that makes no sense. To get from point A to point B, one thing has to follow the other, meaning time already needs to be passing to create anything, which means it doesn't require being created itself. Genesis debunks the notion that God sits in some impossible place outside time. He creates things one "Day" after another. Second option: You just ignored the creation side of things. Point A, Adam doesn't exist. I jump in a time machine, and travel to point B, where I see the Adam I'm thinking about creating eating the fruit. I then travel back to point A, where Adam doesn't exist, so he can't possibly have been faced with a choice yet. IF I now create Adam, using the exact same weak willed design that I know will eat the fruit ... THEN, once created, Adam won't be able to choose not to eat the fruit, once he's actually faced with a choice.
1
@emgtexas If time is something that needs creating, then your God hasn't existed for an eternity. Eternity is the infinite passage of time. So, when did your God start existing? You can keep asserting "free will", all you want, but it would just be a fact that it would be impossible for Adam to make a different choice, once he was actually created, and actually faced with the choice. If it's impossible for him to make a different choice, then he has no "free will". You think every single person has the exact same amount of willpower as everyone else?
1
@emgtexas Your words are meaningless. If time is not passing "eternal" means nothing. No end and no beginning would be us currently at point 0, and there's an infinite backwards, -1, -2, -3, ... And, infinite forwards, 1, 2, 3, ... You're the one creating a beginning of time, which would make God existing prior to that have no meaning. He would have existed for no amount of time, prior to time. God was also the parent of Adam and Eve. You just argued he was a failure of a parent, knew he was going to be a failure of a parent, and parented them the exact same way, anyway. If you understand my point of view, then why do you just keep making impossible assertions? It is impossible for an uncreated Adam to make a choice. You keep claiming he can. He doesn't exist, to do so. Once created, it would be impossible for Adam to make a different choice, or God would be wrong. If you can't possibly make a different choice, then you don't have free will. Stop just asserting you do, and explain how Adam could possibly choose differently AFTER he is created.
1
@emgtexas Rofl! You think you're the one being patient? Again, you just asserted "free will", without giving an actual explanation as to how Adam could possibly choose to do anything differently than what is already known he'd do. A: G knows Adam will choose X, at point C. B: G creates Adam. C: Adam is now faced with a choice, X or ~X. At point C, explain thoroughly, without just asserting "free will", exactly how Adam could possibly choose ~X, when God already knows he will choose X. If he did choose ~X, then God would be wrong. Is it possible for God to be wrong?
1
@emgtexas Blah, blah, again you failed to explain how Adam could possibly choose ~X, when God already knows he'll choose X. At point C, if Adam chose ~X, that would make God wrong. Can your God possibly be wrong? If God can't possibly be wrong, then Adam can't possibly pick ~X.
1
@emgtexas How can you make a decision, if you don't exist? Make sense.
1
@emgtexas I didn't ask how he knows. I asked how someone who doesn't exist can make a decision. You seem about as sharp as a spoon.
1
@emgtexas This debate is already based on the notion that God can magically see the future. Reiterating that God can magically see the future is an entirely redundant statement. Day 5: Adam doesn't actually exist. Someone who doesn't exist can't make decisions. God magically sees the future, beyond Day 6, and sees that the Adam he's about to create will eat the fruit. Day 6: God creates Adam, with the same level of inner strength, and provides Adam with the same parental guidance, that he knows are doomed to fail. Beyond Day 6: The now existing, weak willed, poorly parented, Adam reaches the point of being faced with a choice. Adam can't possibly choose not to eat the fruit or God will have been wrong. ___ You keep talking as if the entire future, the entire timeline, actually exists already. If that were the case, then nothing would need creating. Also, if God had created everything, including the entirety of time, in an instant, then Genesis makes zero sense. And, if every point in time, including every "decision", had been instantly created, by God, that would also negate free will. The entirety of time would be exactly how he wanted it to be.
1
@emgtexas Rofl. If he exists, then he doesn't need to be created, dingus.
1
@emgtexas Again, you're just stating a redundancy, that he can see the future. That's already a given, in the debate. He sees the future, before Adam is created. Adam is then created. How can the now created Adam possibly choose to do anything differently, than what God has seen? If he does, God will have been wrong.
1
@emgtexas That he can see the future was a given, from the start, dingus! That's not what's being debated.
1
@emgtexas You seem to have lost the entire plot, and don't even know what the debate is.
1
@emgtexas You can make up whatever magical nonsense you want, for how God can see the future. That's irrelevant. That he can, some way, some how, is already a given. The question is ... once created, once he's actually brought into existence, once he's actually truly facing a choice in reality, how could Adam possibly choose to do anything differently than what God already knows?
1
@emgtexas He doesn't actually exist yet, dmwt!
1
@emgtexas How he sees the future is irrelevant! If Adam requires being created, then Adam doesn't truly exist yet. How can someone who doesn't exist make a decision? If the future Adam actually exists, then he doesn't require being created.
1
@emgtexas You have already argued that your God is a failure of a teacher. You briefly argued that other powerful magical beings might exist that don't require a creator, which could include other gods, before back peddling. You're the one not grasping what it means to be created. For there to be a point of creation (Day 6 for Adam), that means there needs to be a previous point (Day 5 and before) when the creation didn't yet exist. How can someone who doesn't exist make a decision? That's what you keep claiming. Explain how.
1
@emgtexas How many times ... Looking forward in time is already in a given dingus! But what God "sees" doesn't actually exist yet, or it wouldn't need to be created. Once created ... Once he actually comes into existence ... Once he's actually truly faced with the choice ... How can Adam possibly choose to things differently?
1
@emgtexas Try this: Prior to creating anything, your god sees that Adam will fail. Does your god then have the power to create things differently? Can he choose not to create the tree, not create the snake, not create Satan, choose a different Adam and Eve design, choose to be a better teacher (you claimed willpower is all in the teaching, that there's nothing inherent about it, which would mean there was nothing inherently wrong with Adam, only with how he was taught)? Or, is your god's power limited? If your god's power is unlimited, then the future he saw, where Adam fails, was only one of an unlimited potential futures, that would only happen if God chose to create/teach Adam and Eve to be weak willed, chose to create the tree, chose to create the snake, chose to create Satan ... And then he went ahead and created things exactly that way anyway. Your god didn't see an actual existing person make a choice.
1
@emgtexas Why are you prattling on about irrelevant nonsense? Doesn't matter what Satan started as, your all knowing god would know what he'd turn into, before creating him, right dingus? Yes, you said willpower was all teacher. Right, god would be responsible, either way, since he's both creator and parent. "A range of willpower" ... And he knew that "range" would be inadequate, before creating Adam. They don't f-ing exist, dingus! If they did, then they wouldn't need creating. And, if that's the actual, only possible future, and your god can't make any changes, prior to creating things, then you're now also arguing your god isn't omnipotent, on top of being incompetent.
1
@emgtexas Rofl. Ironic opening, considering the fact that Satan "chosing" is irrelevant to the point I made, dingus. The point was that your god could have chosen not to create him, if he really wanted Adam to succeed, and if he was all powerful enough to change the vision of the future he saw. Apparently you're arguing your god is not all powerful, and apparently you are too daft to grasp any points being made. That takes willpower, dingus, which he didn't have enough of. The entire premise of the story was that they didn't know good from evil, right from wrong, dingus. He chose to leave two innocent, ignrnt, mental and emotional children, that he knew would fail, that he knew he hadn't given the proper skills to, alone with Satan and a tree that would curse them and their descendants for all eternity. Yeah, the circle is because you haven't solved the problem, dmwt. How can someone who doesn't exist make an actual choice? Or, how can someone who now exists chose to do something differently than what God saw, prior to creating them? Constantly repeating that God can see the future, when that's already a given, means you're as sharp as a spoon. Even a god's morality would be based on their own subjective likes and dislikes. Your god wasn't required to create pigs, make them tasty, and then declare it immoral to eat them. He felt like it.
1
@emgtexas Rofl. Ironic opening, considering the fact that Satan "choosing" is irrelevant to the point I made, dingus. The point was that your god could have chosen not to create him, if he really wanted Adam to succeed, and if he was all powerful enough to change the vision of the future he saw. Apparently you're arguing your god is not all powerful, and apparently you are too thick to grasp any points being made. Yeah, that takes willpower, dingus, which he didn't have enough of. The entire premise of the story was that they didn't know good from evil, right from wrong. He chose to leave two innocent, ignrnt, effectively children, that he knew would fail, that he knew he hadn't given the proper skills to, alone with Satan and a tree that would curse them and their descendants for all eternity. But, apparently you're now arguing your God didn't have a choice. That he's not all powerful. That the future he sees is set in stone, and he can't deviate from it. Yeah, the circle is because you haven't solved the problem, dingus. How can someone who doesn't exist make an actual choice? Or, how can someone who now exists chose to do something differently than what God saw, prior to creating them? Constantly repeating that God can see the future, when that's already a given, means you're as sharp as a spoon. Even a god's morality would be based on their own subjective likes and dislikes. Your god wasn't required to create pigs, make them tasty, and then declare it immoral to eat them. He felt like it.
1
@emgtexas So, just to recap: You've argued there could possibly be other powerful uncreated beings in existence. You've argued your god is an incompetent parent. You've now argued your god isn't omnipotent. You've argued a future Adam both exists and doesn't exist. 🤣
1
@emgtexas That you're as sharp as a spoon, is simply an objective fact, at this point. You don't even seem to grasp how fractions/percentages work. A few choice words, here and there is not half. Either you don't grasp them or you're the one lying. Only two options. Pick one. What do you think I lied about? If God sees a future where Adam eats the fruit, and you claim that's the actual, unchangeable, future ... That means your god has limits. If he hasn't actually created anything yet, there should be an infinite number of possible futures, all depending on what he decides to do. Only if that future is a possibility, but not fixed, can your god have the ability to change things. You've clearly chosen to give your god limitations. You made out like point C is an already existing future, which would mean it doesn't need creating. Then, you backtracked and said it doesn't exist. But, then you again claimed that someone who doesn't exist can make a decision. Totally inchrnt. You very clearly openly stated that other powerful beings, besides your god, might not need creating, before backtracking.
1
@emgtexas Glad we agree that you just made stuff up, while trying to dodge that your God created Satan and evil, and then back peddled. How did I dodge anything, when I said even a god's morality would be subjectivity based? All morality is. Absolutely nobody has ever provided a valid argument for objective morality. Even your own god provided a subjectivity based measure of morality ... Love (subjectivity) your neighbor as yourself ... Do unto others as you would like (subjectivity) done to you. Yes, you repeatedly made out like your god was standing outside the timeline, watching it happen, as if it all existed already. But then when I pointed out that would mean it wouldn't need creating, you stated the timeline doesn't exist. But then you again say your god is watching a future that exists. Totally inchrnt. And, if that's the only possible, unchangeable, future, you've also now provided limits to your god's abilities. To be clear, I'm agnostic about the existence of gods the same way I'm agnostic about the existence of aliens. However, I'm quite certain that Star Trek, Spock, the Bible, and its God, are works of fiction.
1
@emgtexas People who don't exist yet, can't make actual decisions. If a future them already exists, making decisions, then they don't need creating. You're arguing for the impossible, or for non creation. Uh huh, so your god thought it would be "good" to knowingly unleash evil (tree), and Satan, onto the world. And, your god lacks the ability to make a different decision, once he sees the future. It's not simply a potential future, according to you. Do you think Greek mythology is fact, or fiction? Again, you're arguing that your god is limited. Either your god can subjectively pick and choose whatever he feels is moral, or immoral ... or your god is himself limited by some outside force. Yeah, I know what kind of ice cream I like. Doesn't change the fact that what I like is subjective. Nobody argues that subjectivity doesn't exist. Our subjectivity (likes, dislikes, biases, desires, etc.) objectively exists.
1
@emgtexas The point at issue, is prior to the creation's existence and any actual decisions it could make. It doesn't exist. If you say there's an existing future Adam, making actual decisions, then Adam doesn't need creating. If you say an uncreated, non existent, Adam can make decisions, then you're arguing for the logically impossible. No creation or the logically impossible ... which is it? And yet, you keep arguing your god does have limits, by claiming the future he sees is a fixed actual future, and not simply a possible future. If Satan sits down and bets God that he can make Job deny him ... then God looks into the future, if Satan's suggestion is accepted, and sees that Job would pass the tests (abuse, suffering, and mrdr) ... Could your god have chosen not to pointlessly trtr Job? Was the future seen only one possibility, or was it the one and only fixed future and your god incapable of choosing to do otherwise? In the end, your god chose to allow for the pointless suffering, just so he could win a bet. Do you think there's some big difference between Thor and Spock? Now you're arguing your god has limits, again. If your god isn't subjectively picking and choosing whatever he thinks is moral or immoral, then what ... is some outside influence making him? Does he not have the ability to choose whatever he likes? Love is subjectivity. Like is subjectivity. Yes, I know I like pizza. It being an objective fact that I subjectively think pizza is good, doesn't magically make it an objective fact that pizza is good.
1
@emgtexas Rofl. You can't defy being created, dingus. For a thing to be created, it means there was a point when it didn't exist. A non existent thing can't make decisions. No creation needed, if you think a future Adam exists already. "Objective in your mind" ... Apparently you also don't know the definition of "objective". 🤣
1
@emgtexas You've argued non existent beings can do things. So, it's fair to say a god isn't even needed for creation, if it can both not exist and create.
1
@emgtexas Nah. It's just repeated evidence that you'll completely invent a nonsensical argument, to try and support your nonsensical position.
1
@emgtexas I've listened to you just fine. You've effectively argued that a being that doesn't exist can do things. Therefore, no need for gods, since they can create things without existing. I repeat the same thing, because you repeatedly just reiterate the starting given, and think you've solved the problem. That the creator can see the future causes the problem. Repeatedly stating they can see the future doesn't solve it, dingus.
1
@emgtexas Admitting that you invented what was effectively a gibberish argument, doesn't change the fact you did. Try informing yourself, before making an argument. If you walk into an ice cream shop, do they have to offer you 💩 flavor, for you to have free will?
1
@emgtexas Ah ha! A potential future is what I said, and what you repeatedly argued against. That means god chose to create that specific outcome, out of all the potential outcomes. Thanks for playing.
1
@emgtexas I'm asking ... if the creator of the ice cream, and the creator of the ice cream shop scenario, doesn't offer you 💩 flavor, have they removed your ability to choose?
1
@emgtexas You don't exist yet, dingus!
1
@emgtexas 🤣 Unless you're arguing your god doesn't know which one you'll pick, prior to creating you, in which case he's not all knowing.
1
@emgtexas And yet you haven't provided a single coherent one. "Through his knowledge of our decision" ... Something that doesn't exist can't make an actual decision. You keep arguing we don't need creating, since we're already existing, and making decisions, in the future. "we can go"? That's not the same as knowing which way we will go. If there are an infinite possible future outcomes, because your god is infinitely powerful and can create, or not create, whatever he wants ... Then, either your god doesn't know exactly which outcome will happen, prior to creating things, or he has picked a single outcome and created that, in which case there's no possible way for a different outcome to happen.
1
@emgtexas And I've repeatedly explained that him having the ability to see the future is already a given, and actually part of the problem. But there you go, yet again, just reiterating that he can see the future, of someone that doesn't exist yet, someone who can't actually make real live decisions. You repeatedly talk as if he's sitting outside the timeline, that the timeline already exists, that the decision maker already exists in that future timeline, which would mean he doesn't need to be created. Also, an all knowing god should know exactly what will happen, before even creating the timeline, since you also claim time needs creating. Even your future Adam couldn't exist, before the timeline exists. Everything you've said is completely incoherent. What are you talking about? He created the devil. Was there no purpose to doing that? What's "good" about allowing "evil"? That's like saying we shouldn't cover electrical sockets, so toddlers can have free choice. Or, like saying an ice cream shop should offer 💩 flavor, and we don't have free will if they don't.
1
@emgtexas Rofl! You don't need to offer me 💩 flavor ice cream, for me to have free will. Offering only good flavors works just fine. That argument, that you have to offer "evil" for there to be free will, is complete nonsense. What do you find so hard to understand about the words "prior to creation"? How can it "continue by its decisions" prior to it existing, dingus? If the place exists to be in, prior to creating it, then it doesn't need creating. Got it.
1
@emgtexas I don't think you've even read the fairytale you're defending. God created the tree (ice cream shop) and the flavors (good and evil). I want the ability to teleport myself around. Why has god limited my free will? If having free will requires having unlimited options available, then we should have superpowers. If it doesn't require having unlimited options, then there's no good reason to create evil, and offer it as an option.
1
@emgtexas Right. Our disagreement is that everything you're saying is nonsensical.
1
@emgtexas I'm not the one saying non existent people, in a non existent future, can make decisions. That's gibberish.
1
@emgtexas But he gave us limits, denied us options. That's denying free will, according to you. You don't even seem to grasp the premise, that Adam and Eve were entirely clueless to the fact that eating the fruit was a sin (evil) because they had no knowledge of good and evil until they ate.
1
@emgtexas I'm not the one claiming people who don't exist can make decisions, dingus. That's all you.
1
@emgtexas Uh huh, and you've gotten no closer to making any sense. The only kind of decisions that can be made by people who don't exist, on a timeline that doesn't exist, are decisions that don't exist. All you keep arguing is that your god isn't needed, because the people and timeline already exist.
1
@emgtexas It literally says they were running around wearing nothing, feeling no shame, just like little kids do. Your god created the tree of knowledge of evil ... created evil ... and they had no knowledge of evil (sin) prior to eating the fruit.
1
@emgtexas Rofl. If you had actually grasped what you read, you would have grasped that she had already eaten, so already gained knowledge of good and evil, before saying that, dingus. Knowing what someone said, and understanding the ramifications of disobeying them, are two different things. God stated they now know good and evil, "like us" (whoever "is" is), and there's zero indication they knew anything of the sort, prior to eating the fruit. If your god had actually wanted them to live forever, he would have just snapped his fingers and made them immortal. Instead, he borrowed an ambrosia tree, from other mythologies, and created one for himself. If the snake was the devil, which it says nowhere and is entirely invented by apologists, then why did your God punish snakes? But, I'm glad you've now reread that your god created the tree, so therefore created evil, and will stop lying about it.
1
@emgtexas Your video literally says that only god has free will, so narrator won't use those words for the rest of the video. Once again, we already have choices, when only offered good flavors, and don't need to be offered 💩 flavors. God chose to offer the 💩 flavors, knowing full well Adam and Eve would choose to eat them, before ever creating them. They were predestined to fail. Also, Jesus was an ignrnt carpenter, turn apclps preacher, who believed in a domed flat earth and a fictional global flood.
1
@emgtexas So now you've agreed that people don't have free will, or will you back peddle yet again?
1
@emgtexas If it's possible to have both limits and free will, then you don't need to have limits to evil removed, to have free will, exactly like I said. Already been over this, but you argued against it. Now you're arguing for it. Then you'll argue against it. Then for, then against. You are just about the most inchrnt theist I've ever run across. It also refers to snakes as just snakes many times in the Bible. You haven't got there? You didn't even manage to finish only 2 pages about the tree and eating the fruit? He cursed snakes to forever slither on the ground and get under the heel of women. Rofl. "Ambrosia" is an immortality giving food or drink, in Greek mythology. Does the tree of life produce fruit that grants immortality? Yes. Then, it's an ambrosia tree. An all powerful god could just make them immortal, or remove that immortality, by thought. The tree is completely pointless. Just something borrowed from other mythologies, like much of the OT. He had absolutely no reason to punish them. Your all knowing god would have actually known that Earth 1.0, starting with Adam, would completely fail, and that he'd begin all over with Earth 2.0, starting with Noah. There was absolutely no good reason for anything, no point to anything, prior to Noah, in that fairytale. Being all powerful, he could have seen his failure of a creation, changed his mind, and started with Noah instead. He chose failure. Rofl. God is depicted as not being very intelligent, in the Bible, and also mad. Did you read how he kept trying to create companions for Adam, and then finally decided on creating Eve for him? If your god knew all that, before actually creating them, why didn't he just create Eve for Adam from the get go?
1
@emgtexas Rofl. Genesis 1 and 2 have contradicting orders. You can't use Genesis 1 to claim he already created them. In Genesis 2, the one where the trees and rule come into play, it literally says he made Adam before animals. Then proceeded to make animals, so Adam wouldn't be alone. “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Only then does your god proceed to make animals, looking for a suitable companion, but none are suitable. "But for Adam no suitable helper was found." Only then does your god decide to make Eve for him. You sent me to a video, which literally says only your god has free will. You already lost the debate, so no clue what position you're even arguing now. You've repeatedly pulled complete nonsense out of ... I don't know where, only to back peddle. Your arguments defy logic, and the meaning of words like "created". I've listened, but haven't heard any actual sense. You can't even make it through the 2 whole relevant pages in your own fairytale book, and don't even seem to understand the parts you are reading. You've twice now not understood the order of what it literally says (Eve's words after her gaining knowledge, not before, and animals after Adam). You don't even know that "Allah" is just Arabic for "God". Even Arabic Christians say "Allah". It's the exact same Abrahamic god, not a different god. The same god as the Jewish "Elohim". Sorry to say ... that you're about as sharp as a spoon is just a statement of fact. What's to respect?
1
@emgtexas "Ambrosia" isn't a specifically well defined thing. Just a food or drink that provides immortality. That is what the tree of life produces. Don't know what you're arguing about. The argument is to not create the bad options. It's not to not create Adam, dingus. It's you that doesn't listen. You've now managed to make it through the one whole page where it says your god created the evil tree, right? You are yourself now arguing that all options aren't required to have "free will", right? So, there's nothing good about creating evil, knowing Adam will eat it. It's not required for "free will". He created it, because that's actually what he wanted to happen. There's no other reason for doing it, even according to you now.
1
@emgtexas Rofl. Even if you fantasize there is no contradiction in the creation order, it would still be pointless to go through all the animals, searching for a companion, knowing full well none would be found and that he'd end up needing to create Eve. He could have just skipped the whole process, and jumped straight to creating Eve. Either your god is as sharp as a spoon, or he doesn't actually know the future (which would help your failed "free will" argument). Lol, now you're pretending you know "how Mohammed put him"? You couldn't even make it through 2 whole pages of your own book. 🤣
1
@emgtexas You left off your foreknowledge, dingus. If you know full well, before handing your kid the knife, that they will cut themselves, and you still hand it to them, then ... YES, that's exactly what you wanted to happen. Only your inability to know the future, would allow for it to be an accident, and not something you wanted to happen. Dingus, why give them the ability to do evil, in the first place? Why include it in "what you have"? Your god clearly didn't want us to teleport around, so didn't give us the ability to do it. Then why give us the ability to do evil, if he didn't want us to use that ability? You're now arguing that "free will" is both unaffected by limitations and affected by limitations. Not letting me teleport around, is limiting me only to options according to his will, dingus. You are a great source of endless logical contradictions. 🤣 Rofl. You think they were smarter than that? There's zero evidence of the OT existing prior to the exile in Babylon. Guess what ... The Mesopotamians had a flood myth, a garden myth, a tower of Babel myth, a man made of clay myth, ... No, I don't think they were any smarter than those around them, who all borrowed and shared myths with each other. Again ... Jesus believed in the domed flat earth OT model, and in the totally fictional global flood. He was an ignrnt carpenter, turned apclps preacher. Do you believe you could see all the nations on earth, from the highest mountain, on a sphere? Or, see the tallest tree from everywhere on earth, on a sphere? Those would only be possible on a flat earth. Do you believe all the stars can fall to earth? That would only be possible if they were tiny little lights within the firmament (dome). Do you believe the moon is itself a light? It's not. Do you believe the Earth is only about 6000 years old? It's not. Do you believe that all of mankind, and all animals, rebooted from one tiny starting point, within the last 6000 years? They didn't.
1
@emgtexas You left off your foreknowledge, dingus. If you know full well, before handing your kid a sharp object, that they will harm themselves, and you still hand it to them, then ... YES, that's exactly what you wanted to happen. Only an inability to know the future, would allow for it to be an accident, and not something you wanted to happen. Dingus, why give them the ability to do evil, in the first place? Why include it in "what you have"? Your god clearly didn't want us to teleport around, so didn't give us the ability to do it. Then why give us the ability to do evil, if he didn't want us to use that ability? You're now arguing that "free will" is both unaffected by limitations and affected by limitations. Not letting me teleport around, is limiting me only to options according to his will, dingus. You are a great source of endless logical contradictions. 🤣 Rofl. You think they were smarter than that? There's zero evidence of the OT existing prior to the exile in Babylon. Guess what ... The Mesopotamians had a flood myth, a garden myth, a tower of Babel myth, a man made of clay myth, ... No, I don't think they were any smarter than those around them, who all borrowed and shared myths with each other. Again ... Jesus believed in the domed flat earth OT model, and in the totally fictional global flood. He was an ignrnt carpenter, turned apclps preacher. Do you believe you could see all the nations on earth, from the highest mountain, on a sphere? Or, see the tallest tree from everywhere on earth, on a sphere? Those would only be possible on a flat earth. Do you believe all the stars can fall to earth? That would only be possible if they were tiny little lights within the firmament (dome). Do you believe the moon is itself a light? It's not. Do you believe the Earth is only about 6000 years old? It's not. Do you believe that all of mankind, and all animals, rebooted from one tiny starting point, within the last 6000 years? They didn't.
1
@emgtexas You left off your foreknowledge, dingus. If you know full well, before handing your kid a sharp object, that they will harm themselves, and you still hand it to them, then ... YES, that's exactly what you wanted to happen. Only an inability to know the future, would allow for it to be an accident, and not something you wanted to happen. Dingus, why include the ability to do evil in "what you have"? Your god clearly didn't want us to teleport around, so didn't give us the ability to do it. Then why give us the ability to do evil, if he didn't want us to use that ability? You're now arguing that "free will" is both unaffected by limitations and affected by limitations. Not letting me teleport around, is limiting me only to options according to his will, dingus. You are a great source of endless logical contradictions. 🤣 Rofl. There's zero evidence of the OT existing prior to the exile in Babylon. Guess what ... The Mesopotamians had a flood myth, a garden myth, a tower of Babel myth, a man made of clay myth, ... No, I don't think they were any brighter than those around them, who all borrowed and shared myths with each other. Again ... Jesus believed in the domed flat earth OT model, and in the totally fictional global flood. He was an ignrnt carpenter, turned apclps preacher. Do you truly believe that all the stars in the sky could fall to Earth? That would only be possible if they were tiny little lights, within the firmament (dome), as described in Genesis. In actuality, stars are distant suns, and if one got close enough, it would be the Earth that would fall into it, and it would only take one.
1
@emgtexas You conveniently left off your foreknowledge. If you know full well, before handing a kid a sharp object, that they will definitely harm themselves, and you still hand it to them, then ... YES, that's exactly what you wanted to happen. Only an inability to know the future, would allow for it to be an accident, and not something you wanted to happen. Why include the ability to do evil in "what you have"? Your god clearly didn't want us to teleport around, so didn't give us the ability to do it, didn't include it in "what you have". Then why give us the ability to do evil, if he didn't want us to use that ability? You're now arguing that "free will" is both unaffected by limitations and affected by limitations. Not letting me teleport around, is limiting me only to options according to his will. Zero sense, coming from that end. Rofl. There's zero evidence of the OT existing prior to the exile in Babylon. Guess what ... The Mesopotamians had a flood myth, a garden myth, a tower of Babel myth, a man made of clay myth, ... No, I don't think they were any different than those around them, who all borrowed and shared myths with each other. Again ... Jesus believed in the domed flat earth OT model, and in the totally fictional global flood. He was an ignrnt carpenter, turned apclps preacher. Do you believe you could see all the nations on earth, from one spot, on a sphere?
1
@emgtexas It literally says they went through all the animals, looking for a companion. I already quoted it for you. I also just stated it was still a waste of time, looking for a companion amongst animals, even if you want to ignore the creation part. And, you come back prattling on about creation. You can't even understand words, when you do read them. Ignore the creation, and it was still a waste of time, looking for a helper amongst the animals, knowing full well he'd have to create Eve anyway. I stopped reading. I'm starting to think you have an actual disability. Please let me know if you do.
1
@emgtexas I didn't read the rest because the first part was such a failure. There's clearly some lack of ability going on. "15The Lord God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and watch over it." "18Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him.” 19So the Lord God formed from the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky." Do you know what the word "then" means? Do you know what the word "so" means? They indicate an order of things happening. That you couldn't see a contradiction to Genesis 1, suggests you don't even know what those little words mean. Do you know what "all" means? That you proposed that he had made some animals in Genesis 1, and then some more for the garden, means you also don't know what "all" means. "20He gave names to all the livestock, all the birds of the sky, and all the wild animals. But still there was no helper just right for him." Do you know what the word "but" means? It means they were trying to accomplish a thing, something other than naming the animals, BUT didn't succeed ... didn't find a "helper just right for him". "23“At last!” the man exclaimed." Do you know what those words mean? They mean "Finally!" ... they finally succeeded. They could have succeeded by simply doing that first. What grade level do we need to drop down to, exactly?
1
@emgtexas Rofl. What version, dingus? You know there are multiple versions, right? You: There's no contradiction! Everything was created in Genesis 1! Genesis 2 totally isn't retelling the story in a different order! Genesis 2: "5 Now no shrub of the field was yet on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground." You: Hur. Dur. I S. M. R. T. Smart!
1
@emgtexas Even after completely failing at the original free will debate, you keep insisting on proving, over, and over, that there are some serious problems going on, on that end. I mean seriously, my reply opens, "Rofl. Genesis 1 and 2 have contradicting orders.". You didn't even have to open up any replies and read through them, to find it. Now you've just argued that "mankind" was created in Genesis 1, so the Adam created in Genesis 2 wasn't the first man created, and everyone doesn't descend from him and Eve, since the "mankind" in Genesis 1 was told to multiply. Pretty sure that now contradicts other passages. So, why did all the other humans, who were created in Genesis 1, and aren't descendants of Adam ... according to you ... get cursed for Adam being a failure? Your "genius" is truly unrivaled.
1
@emgtexas Rofl, you brought up Genesis 1, not me. I was talking about the stuff in Genesis 2, the tree and whatnot, until you did. Rofl. Genesis 2: "5 ... and there was no man to cultivate the ground." ... " 7 Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living person." If "mankind" in Genesis 1 was already created, then Adam isn't included in "mankind", because he's being created in Genesis 2. If Genesis 2 is a retelling, and "mankind" and "Adam" are the same, then Genesis 2 is in a contradictory order. Pick one.
1
@emgtexas No matter how many times I tell you that god's perspective is irrelevant, you keep bringing it up. That he can see the future, some way, some how, is exactly what causes the problem. The problem then lies with Adam. Point A: I am Adam, but I don't yet exist. If I exist in the future, then I don't need to be created. Not yet existing means I can't make any real world choices. However, my creator knows I will choose to do X, at Point B. Point B: I have now been created, and am faced with a real world choice. If I choose to do ~X, my creator will be wrong. My creator can't be wrong, so I can't possibly choose ~X.
1
@emgtexas We're off topic, because the free will topic was done. You outright sent me to a video that literally said only god has free will. You lost. Then you started backtracking, yet again, and making out like "mankind" had some predefined definition, with preset limitations, once again taking agency and ability away from your own god. Your god could have made us with any number of limitations, or without any, and still called us "mankind". You were just arbitrarily declaring some necessary (taking power from your own god's ability) and arguing limitations are both acceptable and unacceptable.
1
@emgtexas You literally sent me to a video, that said exactly that ... that only god has free will. I stopped reading, at that point. I advise seeking a MH professional. There are some serious problems going on, there.
1
@emgtexas Because he was a maroon. He thought stars could fall to Earth.
1
@emgtexas You opened with contradicting a video that you, yourself, told me to watch "bro", so I stopped reading. You can debate yourself, at this point, you've contradicted yourself so much. What's to answer? If there's no creator, then it wasn't a creation. Pretty simple.
1
@emgtexas Also, it isn't a metaphor. It's what's described in Genesis 1. Jesus was an ignrnt carpenter who believed "stars" were tiny little lights within the firmament (dome), so could fall to Earth, and that the moon has its own light.
1
@emgtexas Why would I need to read past you contradicting yourself, yet again? Don't open with such a horrible failure. Do better, dingus. You're just asserting everything has a creation. Prove it.
1
@emgtexas You inserted the "nothing" and the "created". Again you're arguing with yourself. I literally said not a creation. Is English not your first language? You also don't seem to understand "infinitely", if you think it has a start or end. Are you saying your god hasn't existed for eternity? When was his starting point, and who was his creator?
1
@emgtexas The Big Bang doesn't say there was absolutely nothing prior to it. In fact, the Law of Conservation of Mass states that matter can't be created or destroyed. It may have just had a different previous form. If everything needs creating, then why does Genesis 1 state that water already existed? Like many mythologies, god then forms things out of the already existing primordial waters.
1
@emgtexas How do contradictory passages, hundreds of years later, "clear that up"? Biblical contradictions don't clear anything up. They're evidence it's all nonsense. You've basically got two options for Genesis 1:1 ... First, he actually creates earth and heaven at 1:1. In that case, you can try and claim that includes the waters, but it makes Day 2 senseless, when he creates heaven again. Second, 1:1 is like a headline, and everything that follows is how he created earth and heaven. In that case, the primordial waters already exist (like in numerous other mythologies), since the first thing it says he creates is light. It says, "beginning of what we know". There are multiple hypothesis about before the Big Bang. And, even if you claim that was when time came into existence, that would mean nothing existed "before", not even a creator. To get from point A, no creation, to point B, creation, would require time already existing. It would be impossible for time to be created.
1
@emgtexas I'll mark down "if you" as more little words you don't seem to know the definitions of. You are arguing that nothing existed, for any amount of time, prior to creation. That means your god didn't exist for any amount of time, prior to time existing. So, who created your god, since he has a starting point? Only eternity (infinite time) has no starting, or ending, points. I remember when theists used to claim their god was eternal. Now they're claiming he too has a starting point. Weird stuff. Is he like the Egyptian god Ptah, who nonsensicallly created himself? Water is mentioned before he creates light, and the days start to pass. Before you were arguing there was "THE" Bible. Now you're arguing that, not only are there other versions, but "THE" Bible isn't even translated properly. You can't seem to keep anything straight. The "primordial waters", or "cosmic ocean", represent chaos, from which the creator god (in multiple mythologies) creates order. Calling it a "void" doesn't debunk my argument. Egyptian mythology: "The void itself was described as a primordial body of water out of which rose up a mound shaped like a pyramid—a benben." Only 2 original apostles, and supposed NT writers, claimed to have seen undead Jesus, Matthew and John. The only other supposed writer, to make the claim, was Paul. Absolutely nobody else wrote down their testimony. That's just 3 people, not hundreds. I take it you believe in aliens, since you think alien abduction claims are valid evidence.
1
@emgtexas Ironic opening, dingus, considering the fact that I said it already "existed", not that it was already "created". I totally agree. It wasn't "created". You seem to be arguing with yourself, yet again. No. You stated you had read "the" Bible, and then accused me of not being able to read, because those passages weren't in "the" Bible. You have one of the absolutely worst memories that I have ever run across, in my entire life. Eternal = infinite time. You just claimed time had a starting point. Arguing with yourself, yet again. Pick one. Can't be both.
1
@emgtexas You also seem to have confused the word "separated" for "created". At no point does your god create any waters, which you yourself just agreed represented water, on Day 2. He separates the waters above (fresh) from the waters below (salt) with a dome.
1
@emgtexas You: "I am reading THE Bible and those NUMBERS are not THE passages at all." You now: I didn't say THE Bible and you didn't number the passages!
1
@emgtexas You: Eternity (infinite time) doesn't exist! Also you: God is eternal!
1
@emgtexas Again ... Later contradictory passages is just evidence the book is nonsense. In Genesis 1, it literally doesn't say the waters are created. They're there before it says God creates a single thing. There's absolutely nothing you can say to change that fact.
1