Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[belorg]

The Douay R. introduces Genesis with this;
*God createth Heaven and Earth, and all things therein, in six days.
*
[1] In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

They both look like introductions to me.

Because they both probably are. But that does not change the fact that Genesis has a dark earth and water (or deuterium, which, as everybody knows, is the same as water) before there were photons.

 

[pig]

Because they both probably are. But that does not change the fact that Genesis has a dark earth and water (or deuterium, which, as everybody knows, is the same as water) before there were photons.

[2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. [3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made. [4] And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. [5] And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

Ok, the earth was void and empty. it was not created fully.
…darkness was on the face of the deep;
…fine, the universe expanded from an infinitesimally small point of light into what? the non-light, darkness of nothing, stretching away into the deep infinity?
The Spirit of God moved over the waters, as you say - over the deuterium after 3 minutes and before 20 minutes were gone by.
And God said let there be light, and light expanded onwards and filled the universe for one million years.
And he divided the light from the darkness, fine - the light he created faded after one million years leaving a transparent universe.
And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night, and light now has a name, day, (it had never existed before), and darkness now has a name, night, (it had never existed before).

…and there was evening and morning one day.

 

[belorg]

[2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. [3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made. [4] And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. [5] And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

Ok, the earth was void and empty. it was not created fully.
…darkness was on the face of the deep;

Darkness

…fine, the universe expanded from an infinitesimally small point of light into what? the non-light, darkness of nothing, stretching away into the deep infinity?

No, according to you, not the non-light, but photons. You claimed God created the light first and now you claim God created light after he had created some void and empty earth which already had deuterium.

The Spirit of God moved over the waters, as you say - over the deuterium after 3 minutes and before 20 minutes were gone by.

The point is:there was light before that, but the story says it was dark

And God said let there be light, and light expanded onwards and filled the universe for one million years.

The expansing tool place before deuterium was present.

And he divided the light from the darkness, fine - the light he created faded after one million years leaving a transparent universe.
And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night, and light now has a name, day, (it had never existed before), and darkness now has a name, night, (it had never existed before).

The light of Day is the light of the sun.

And he created the stars after the sun. Also a fact known by science?

 

[stewstew03]

No, that’s not a path belorg chose. Belorg honestly does not believe God exists, just as billions of others honestly think there is a God but not the Catholic one.
If I am incorrect, then I am probably too stupid to understand the “obvious Truth”, and too stupid to make a real choice.

Regarding honest beliefs - is Belorg intellectually honest? Do you find absolutely no evidence for a “higher power”? An Un-moved Mover, as it were?

 

[stewstew03]

I cannot imagine an abstract OJ Simpson, no. Can you?

Apparently the jury imagined an abstract OJ…

 

[pig]

Darkness

?

No, according to you, not the non-light, but photons. You claimed God created the light first and now you claim God created light after he had created some void and empty earth which already had deuterium.

There are ‘ands’ between all the sentences. And you could have a void earth and light and watery deuterium and etc. together, language is a linear thing but events can be simultaneous or overlapping as they wish.

The point is:there was light before that, but the story says it was dark

Well if he said ‘then’ there was darkness instead of ‘and’, then you would have a chronology to use.

The expansing tool place before deuterium was present.

I don’t see how a void emptiness is an expanding, but I suppose it coud be the first 3 minutes just before the deuterium…

The light of Day is the light of the sun.

And he created the stars after the sun. Also a fact known by science?

And science has discovered the lights in the sky (the stars) were created after light was created. A fact known by Revelation?

 

[PRmerger]

Apparently the jury imagined an abstract OJ…

That made me SOL!*

*snicker out loud

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Thread Warning:

Discuss the topic, **NOT **each other. Violations will result in infractions.

 

[PRmerger]

I see that 2 of my posts were deleted, and as such, I apologize!

 

[belorg]

Regarding honest beliefs - is Belorg intellectually honest? Do you find absolutely no evidence for a “higher power”? An Un-moved Mover, as it were?

Yes, I am intellectually honest.

And, if by a higher power you mean a personal deity, I find absolutely no credible evidence. And if you mean the Christian/Catholic God I honestly am 100% certain that He does not exist.

 

[belorg]

?

There are ‘ands’ between all the sentences. And you could have a void earth and light and watery deuterium and etc. together, language is a linear thing but events can be simultaneous or overlapping as they wish.

You cannot have a dark void together with light.

Well if he said ‘then’ there was darkness instead of ‘and’, then you would have a chronology to use.

It’s not ‘then’ there was darkness, but the ‘And God said let light be made’ entails a chronology because let light be made necssarily comes after darkness and not before it.

I don’t see how a void emptiness is an expanding, but I suppose it coud be the first 3 minutes just before the deuterium…

Do you think the Big Ban g stood still fro 3 minutes?

And science has discovered the lights in the sky (the stars) were created after light was created. A fact known by Revelation?

The fact that the authors of Genesis put light before the stars is probably not by revelation because
1 the fact that there weer photons before there were stars does not mean there was light
2 the light that is described in Genesis as the light of the day is Sunlight, which was not prior to the lights of other stars.

To summarize your position. Only if you use a very loose interpretation does Genesis have some things correct, but still lots of things incorrect. Objective reasoning tells us that nothing of the ‘correct’ things in Genesis requires any sort of revelation and since the incorrect things contradict revelation, the logical conclusion is: this is just another creation myth.

 

[belorg]

I see that 2 of my posts were deleted, and as such, I apologize!

I second that. So,I suggest we discuss the actual topic of this thread instead od derailing it.

 

[stewstew03]

And if you mean the Christian/Catholic God I honestly am 100% certain that He does not exist.

100% certain that something does not exist in the entire Universe? Bold claim. Now you seem to be claiming that you are some sort of an infallible and omniscient being…

 

[belorg]

100% certain that something does not exist in the entire Universe? Bold claim. Now you seem to be claiming that you are some sort of an infallible and omniscient being…

If there is such as thing as logic, you can be 100% certain that something that is logically impossible does not exist. Or do you think it needs an omniscient being to know that there is no such thing as a square circle?

Now, of course I am fallible, jus as everybody else. And maybe I am too stupid to understand that the Chrsitian God is logicfally possible after all. But since when is being stupid a crime that deserves punishment, or even worse, eternal munishment?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Now, of course I am fallible, jus as everybody else. And maybe I am too stupid to understand that the Chrsitian God is logicfally possible after all. But since when is being stupid a crime that deserves punishment, or even worse, eternal munishment?

Belorg, your use of “jus,” “Chrsitian,” “logicfally” and “munishment” suggest that invincible you are not. Perhaps, take that as a providential sign that you have exceeded your limits for making absolute rulings about absolute issues.

 

[stewstew03]

If there is such as thing as logic, you can be 100% certain that something that is logically impossible does not exist. Or do you think it needs an omniscient being to know that there is no such thing as a square circle?

Now, of course I am fallible, jus as everybody else. And maybe I am too stupid to understand that the Chrsitian God is logicfally possible after all. But since when is being stupid a crime that deserves punishment, or even worse, eternal munishment?

But we know that all squares have four equal sides with four right angles. And we know that circles are round shapes with no right angles. Therefore, one doesn’t need to be omniscient to declare that there is no such thing as a square circle.

God, by definition, transcends the universe. You claim to know with absolute certainty that there is nothing that transcends the Universe. In order to know with absolute certainty that nothing transcends the Universe, you must have knowledge of all reality in the Universe. In other words, you’d have to be omniscient to know that in all of reality, and in all the Universe, from the beginning to the end of time, there is no realm in which God exists or has ever existed.

To have that kind of absolute certainty means that you are a god. Or, if you are not a god, and do not have knowledge of all reality, then you have complete and absolute trust in something unknown (i.e., faith).

 

[belorg]

But we know that all squares have four equal sides with four right angles. And we know that circles are round shapes with no right angles. Therefore, one doesn’t need to be omniscient to declare that there is no such thing as a square circle.

God, by definition, transcends the universe. You claim to know with absolute certainty that there is nothing that transcends the Universe. In order to know with absolute certainty that nothing transcends the Universe, you must have knowledge of all reality in the Universe. In other words, you’d have to be omniscient to know that in all of reality, and in all the Universe, from the beginning to the end of time, there is no realm in which God exists or has ever existed.

I have never claimed to know that nothing transcends the universe.
I am claiming that the Christian God is a circle with four equal sides.

 

[belorg]

Belorg, your use of “jus,” “Chrsitian,” “logicfally” and “munishment” suggest that invincible you are not. Perhaps, take that as a providential sign that you have exceeded your limits for making absolute rulings about absolute issues.

No, invincible I am not, so I do not make absolute rulings. Never have done so.

 

[davidv]

I have never claimed to know that nothing transcends the universe.
I am claiming that the Christian God is a circle with four equal sides.

Your claim as absurd as a circle with four side. It is an unsupported opinion with no basis in fact.

 

[PRmerger]

I am claiming that the Christian God is a circle with four equal sides.

How so?

Remember, you have to make a claim that is logically nonsense that Catholic believe.

As in: “We proclaim God to be “A” and “not-A” at the same time!”

And please offer the document that makes the claim about God that you believe to be illogical.

IOW: You can’t say: it’s illogical to believe in a god that’s both a Trinity and a Quadrinity, and that’s what Catholicism proclaims, therefore I reject that god.

Unless, of course, you can offer the document that proclaims that we believe that god is both a Trinity and a Quandrinity.