No Hell and everyone gets saved

First topic message reminder :

The Bible does not really teach of any burning HELL as the word in the Bible only means the grave or garbage dump where they use to throw dead bodies.

Many religions beside Christianity has taught people this wrong barbaric idea as their religious doctrine, but it is not real.

1) Any God that burns people for any reason is not only a monster but a criminal and a sinner and an evil entity.

2) Burning people is not "forgiveness" as it is rather the opposite of forgiving.

3) Burning people is not "love" as it is rather the opposite of love.

4) Putting any person into a Hell, link, is not justice and such an evil idea can not be justice.

5) To "love" means no pain and no more hurting for anyone, as per: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." KJV. Revelation 21:4.

God is love, link here = 1 John 4:8, and God does not hurt people, and that means no one ever goes to any hell.

Everyone is a sinner at various degrees and depth, and there is no one as righteous.

Nobody goes to some fire and torment of any hell, and the saying of "Hell on earth" in this lifetime now is far more accurate.

In the end everyone gets saved and not even one sinner nor one evil sheep gets lost or left out because salvation is for all of mankind.

Jesus said "Love thy enemies" just as God loves His enemies, Matthew 5:43-48, so love does not burn people and love does not hurt people, and that means not even those that are sinners and enemies.

See 1 Corinthians 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." So the person is being "SAVED" by the "FIRE" and not hurt by it.

The plan is to have a great salvation, and it would not be great if some people were excluded.

Just FYI.

Dr, Sheldon,
I would like an explanation of how you think an omnipotent can be is restricted in any way other than by choice.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I would like an explanation of how you think an omnipotent can be is restricted in any way other than by choice.

I don't. What's more I couldn't possibly have made it any clearer that I don't. I am at a loss as to why you think I have claimed this. However I'll give it one more try...

1. EITHER your deity CHOOSES to allow suffering that it can stop using its omnipotence.

OR

2. Your deity can't stop suffering and is not omnipotent.


Since you are claiming it is both omnipotent and benevolent then these claims TOGETHER are contradicted by the fact that suffering is ubiquitous. It's a paradox your religion has dedicated a whole discipline to called theodicy. As yet it has proved unsolvable.

Dr,Seldon,
I have explained very clearly the difference in the manner you see omnipotence and the actual meaning.

Of course God could stop all the suffering and also deal with Satan, and I have also given an explanation regarding benevolence, where a father could not deal with the sufferting of his child because the law does not allow it although if he could he would do all in his power to protect his son.

God cannot do away with suffering caused by Satan until Satan has had his time.

You say you know the Bible then this should be self evident.

Polyglide wrote:
God cannot do away with suffering caused by Satan until Satan has had his time.  

You keep insisting you know what omnipotence means and insisting I don't,  yet here again you have claimed that there is something an omnipotent being cannot do.

I am at a loss as to how you think this isn't a paradox?

If a being is omnipotent then there is no can't.  You've even said this repeatedly yourself,  yet here you directly contradict it.

You don't have a very good grasp of theodicy I'm afraid, and you're not able to calmly read what I've written so you leap past it alternately making two mutually exclusive claims.

FYI I don't believe I've ever said I know the bible.

Dr, Sheldon,
I respectfully ask if you actually understand what I have said.

I have never said an omnipotent being cannot do anything, I have repeatedly pointed out that it can do anything.

Including making any arrangement it decides.

God decided to give Satan an opportunity, he decided, no one else, in doing so he deciderd he would not interefer with Satan for a period of time. he decided he chose to and being omnipotent could pick and choose to his hearts content, no one could interfere, the fact that God could not deal with Satan at the present time was God's choice.
God could, if he wished, step in at any time, the fact that he has not does not in any way make his omnipotence compromised.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, I respectfully ask if you actually understand what I have said.  I have never said an omnipotent being cannot do anything, I have repeatedly pointed out that it can do anything.

I don't think it's me who doesn't understand to be honest, as you seem to be contradicting yourself again, HERE:

Polyglide wrote:Polyglide wrote:
by polyglide Today at 3:09 pm
I have explained fully why God at the present time cannot deal with the ills of the world.

LINK TO PAGE

Polyglide wrote:God decided to give Satan an opportunity, he decided, no one else, in doing so he deciderd he would not interefer with Satan for a period of time. he decided he chose to and being omnipotent could pick and choose to his hearts content, no one could interfere, the fact that God could not deal with Satan at the present time was God's choice.

Of course an omnipotent being (if it existed) could do literally anything as I have said repeatedly, so am unsure why you're claiming the opposite. So it's hardly rational or logical to describe such a being as benevolent if as you claim in that last quote it is deliberately choosing to allow evil and suffering, is it?

Since you seem very confused here could you quote a post of mine where you think I have said an omnipotent being can't do anything it wills? As I am certain I've not done this.

Dr, Sheldon,
God does not choose to allow anyone to be treated in an unacceptable manner, Satan choosed to challenge and God allowed him his chance, the fact that Satan is a low life and using anything and everything to get mankind to turn against God is not God's doing but Satan's.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, God does not choose to allow anyone to be treated in an unacceptable manner, Satan choosed to challenge and God allowed him his chance, the fact that Satan is a low life and using anything and everything to get mankind to turn against God is not God's doing but Satan's.
       

So you're claiming God can't stop Satan creating unimaginable evil and suffering? Then that is not omnipotent, or are you claiming he simply is allowing it out of choice? In which case he's not benevolent.

You're just going around and around in circles claiming first one thing, then the opposite. Which is it?

polyglide wrote: I have never said an omnipotent being cannot do anything, I have repeatedly pointed out that it can do anything.

by polyglide Today at 3:09 pm
I have explained fully why God at the present time cannot deal with the ills of the world.

Could you do us all the courtesy here of admitting you made these two contradictory claims as well please? Or least offer some explanation, as simply ignoring my post is very rude.

polyglide wrote:
Dr, Sheldon, I respectfully ask if you actually understand what I have said.  I have never said an omnipotent being cannot do anything, I have repeatedly pointed out that it can do anything.

by polyglide Today at 3:09 pm
I have explained fully why God at the present time cannot deal with the ills of the world.

Either there is nothing such a being can't do, or there is something he can't do, you have claimed both. Which is it?

Dr, Sheldon,
I have never claimed both.

I have always said God can do whatever he wishes, make a deal, not make a deal, allow or not allow, I have also explained your apparent misunderstanding regarding Satan and his conflict with God and feel you are just either incapable of understanding or just purposely obtuse, in both cases you have my deapest sympathy.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I have never claimed both.

                I have always said God can do whatever he wishes, make a deal, not make a deal, allow or not allow, I have also explained your apparent misunderstanding regarding Satan and his conflict with God and feel you are just either incapable of understanding or just purposely obtuse, in both cases you have my deapest sympathy.

It's deepest, and I believe you have been warned about using ad hominem about people's grasp of English, especially when you don't care to proof read your posts.

Polyglide wrote: I have never claimed both.

Yes you have, here again is the post of yours claiming he cannot do something, are you denying this is a quote from your own post? I can provide a link to the page if you'd like.

Polyglide wrote:by polyglide Today at 3:09 pm
I have explained fully why God at the present time cannot deal with the ills of the world.

You've claimed in this post it can do anything, so which is it? As the misunderstanding here isn't mine, though it's clear your position is both contradictory and confusing. How can you claim a being "can not do something" then in the same post claim there is nothing it can not do? Either it is omnipotent and has limitless choices, or there is something it can't do?

1. If it can't avoid the consequences of a deal with Satan, then it's not omnipotent.
2. If it can avoid this but chooses not to, then it is alone responsible for evil and suffering, and not benevolent.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,  I have never claimed both.

by polyglide on Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:22 pm
An omnipotent can do anything or nothing according to it's will, NOTHING is beyond an omnipotent.

Post by polyglide on Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:52 pm
Stu, At no time have I said God is limited in any way.

by polyglide on Mon Jun 15, 2015 3:09 pm
Dr, Sheldon, I have explained fully why God at the present time cannot deal with the ills of the world.

Yes you have, and they're right there. The first two quite specifically claim an omnipotent deity exists, and there is nothing it can not do, then in that last post of yours you claim there is something it can not do.  

LINK TO THE PAGE ALL THOSE QUOTES ARE ON

Polyglide wrote:Post by polyglide on Fri Jun 19, 2015 6:04 pm
Dr, Sheldon,
God does not choose to allow anyone to be treated in an unacceptable manner, Satan choosed to challenge and God allowed him his chance,

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I have never claimed both.

                I have always said God can do whatever he wishes, make a deal, not make a deal, allow or not allow, I have also explained your apparent misunderstanding regarding Satan and his conflict with God and feel you are just either incapable of understanding or just purposely obtuse, in both cases you have my deapest sympathy.

Since you've chosen again to insult my understanding of English I'm sure you wont mind if I take a little schadenfreude at this rather pompous insult coming from someone who can't spell deep, and who thinks "choosed" (sic) is a word.

Lay of the ad hominem and I'll leave your risible spelling alone.

Well it appears my schadenfreude has backfired, with my lesser known spelling of won't.

Dr, Sheldon,
We all make mistakes.

Dr, Sheldon,
I just cannot understand your lack of understanding that an omnipotent being capable of anything cannot decide not to do something, in which case it is by choice and not because of being unable, therefore this does not compromise the capabilities.

God could deal with Satan at any time but to keep to the agreement he is withholding his hand until the appointed time, so throuhg choice and not because of any lack of power that is the position.

If you cannot understand the implications there is little I can do, other than maybe request you to ask someone who believes as I do, to explain in a manner you maybe can understand but I have no intention of going over the same ground again.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I just cannot understand your lack of understanding that an omnipotent being capable of anything cannot decide not to do something, in which case it is by choice and not because of being unable, therefore this does not compromise the capabilities.

                God could deal with Satan at any time but to keep to the agreement he is withholding his hand until the appointed time, so throuhg choice and not because of any lack of power that is the position.

                If you cannot understand the implications there is little I can do, other than maybe request you to  ask someone who believes as I do, to explain in a manner you maybe can understand but I have no intention of going over the same ground again.  

Can you please quote a post of mine anywhere that claims an omnipotent being can't do anything it wishes?

I have repeatedly said the opposite and quoted the dictionary to support my claim. Why are you still lying and claiming the opposite?

If such a being existed and was benevolent it could and would stop evil and suffering . Yet we can see this has not happened. Obviously because such a being doesn't exist, and the claim itself creates a paradox.

If it chooses not to stop evil and suffering then it's not benevolent.

If it can't choose to stop evildoers and suffering THEN AND ONLY THEN would it not be omnipotent.

I really can't simplify this anymore. Look up theodicy or get a knowledgeable theologian to explain it.

You Polyglide were the one who claimed there was something your omnipotent deity cannot do. I quoted your post several times? I never claimed this, why would I as an atheist I don't see any evidence such a being exists at all.


Now you reverse this claim and insist it's through choice. So that would mean any being that could stop suffering and evil but chose not to is self evidently not benevolent.

by polyglide Today at 2:54 pm
God could deal with Satan at any time

by polyglide on Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:17 pm
God cannot do away with suffering caused by Satan until Satan has had his time.

by polyglide on Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:53 pm
Dr, Sheldon, I respectfully ask if you actually understand what I have said. I have never said an omnipotent being cannot do anything,

by polyglide on Fri Jun 19, 2015 6:04 pm
God does not choose to allow anyone to be treated in an unacceptable manner,

Post by polyglide on Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:29 pm
I have always said God can do whatever he wishes,

Polyglide wrote: by polyglide on Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:05 pm
I agree that an omnipotent can do anything, anythimg includes deciding to let a deviant try to oppose, an omnipotent is not tied in any way,

So you're claiming your god chooses to allow evil, and suffering through some deal with Satan? He's not tied to it in any way and chooses to allow it himself?

SO HE IS NOT BENEVOLENT THEN? That's self evident, as a benevolent being wouldn't choose to allow suffering and evil if it could stop it. Let alone the ubiquitous suffering we see.

Once again you need to acknowledge that theodicy exists, and was created by your religion to tackle this paradox, which of course you also need to acknowledge exists. Your beliefs are not being questioned, this paradox is a direct consequence of those beliefs, and trying to claim I don't understand it is just dishonest deflection, and I think everyone can that.

Dr, Sheldon,
Of course theodicy exists, read Alvin Platinga, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Julian of Norwich.

I have a 100% belief in God, so why on earth should I want to consider anyone or anything that tries to prove otherwise?.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Of course theodicy exists, read Alvin Platinga, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Julian of Norwich.

                I have a 100% belief in God, so why on earth should I want to consider anyone or anything that tries to prove otherwise?.

To objectively seek the truth, obviously.

That aside you have claimed that you believe your god allows Satan to produce untold evil and suffering through choice. This of course is entirely incompatible with the claim that such a being is benevolent. To simply accept a claim that is so obviously contradictory as being 100% correct does rather make discussion redundant. it also makes your obvious frustration when others have offered contrary views a little perplexing.

No one incidentally is trying to disprove the existence of God. Though I have presented what I consider to be compelling reasons not to believe in the existence of a deity.

Dr, Sheldon,
I have never said God allows suffering through choice.

God did not decide wether Satan used certain methods to turn mankind against him, Satan decided the methods he has used.

Given the chance to turn all mankind against God, [by God], Satan is doing his best to do so, this does not in any way compromise God's position.

We do not understand all the implications of the world and have no idea at all regarding how the dealings within God's demain are carried out, so have no idea how or why God allowed Satan his chance, the fact is he did,

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, I have never said God allows suffering through choice.

by polyglide Yesterday at 2:54 pm
Dr, Sheldon, I just cannot understand your lack of understanding that an omnipotent being capable of anything cannot decide not to do something, in which case it is by choice and not because of being unable, therefore this does not compromise the capabilities.

This is too funny now...It's like watching a dog chase it's tail and never quite grasp why it can't get there.

and again...

by polyglide on Mon Jun 15, 2015 2:56 pm
Dr, Sheldon, I would like an explanation of how you think an omnipotent can be is restricted in any way other than by choice.

polyglide wrote: by polyglide Yesterday at 2:54 pm
Dr, Sheldon, God could deal with Satan at any time

by polyglide on Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:55 pm
Dr, Sheldon, God cannot do anything at the present time

And around and around we go.....

and here in the same post, astonishing....LINK

by polyglide on Mon Jun 15, 2015 4:17 pm
Dr,Seldon, God could stop all the suffering and also deal with Satan,

God cannot do away with suffering caused by Satan

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, I have a 100% belief in God, so why on earth should I want to consider anyone or anything that tries to prove otherwise?.

"So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is,-for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know."
― Plato, Apology

That seems apropos, and I'm sure there is no harm in a mediocre intellect like me borrowing from a great one like Plato.

Dr, Sheldon,
You can borrow anything you wish as long as it is appropriate.

I do, however, have to consider your opinion that you are mediocre, I have no such feelings towards you, I feel you are just mislead by science and are reluctant to realy consider all the alternatives.

Your assumption is wrong. I was raised as a christian, and my motives were and are to seek the truth as far as is possible. Religious apologetics started to unravel for me when I started to question what I was being taught. Everything I've learned since convinces me more and more that theism is based on the human imagination and need and nothing more.

Religious claims simply leave me unconvinced, whereas atheism leaves me with no cognitive dissonance. It simply fits all the known facts. My own motives are neutral, though and I strive for impartiality but my conclusions are based on the tangible evidence .

As far as motives go, you claim to be 100% certain of your beliefs. Doesn't questioning my motives seem a little ironic to you in light of such a claim?

The argument from evil is an ancient one, as the Epicurus quote shows. It's still very compelling as theologians twist themselves in knots to try and rationalise it.

You'll forgive me for pointing it out but your own rationalisation of it seems very inconsistent, and relies on believing in a second supernatural entity no more evidenced than the first. This ironically still doesn't help as you yourself point out an omnipotent being can do literally anything.

Have you ever tried objectively taking a critical look at some of Christianity's claims? Starting from a position of objective scepticism might cause you to rethink what is true, or at least question how compelling the arguments are. Science FYI has this kind of objective sceptical scrutiny built into its process. With things like falsification and peer review and of course because the process rewards those who disprove claims at least as much as those who confirm them.

Dr, Sheldon,
From a very young age I was made aware of religion and not in a very pleasant manner, fear being the main thing used to instil the idea that God had to be feared and obeyed.

I attended the Apostolic Church that my parents attended and never missed a Sunday for many years, I had numerous Bibles and New Testaments for good attendance in in fact I still use one from my youth.

When I got older I began to doubt the idea of God being like I had been told etc;

So I decided to look at all the options regarding the world and life in general.

Firstly I considered the alternative that life came about by chance and evolution etc.

I understood what Darwin said along with many other theories not one came close to explaining all that was required for all forms of life to come about by chance.

The only other alternative was a creator.

Then I looked at the state of the world , even in my younger days and decided that were there not some kind of evil around that could not be explained, then the world and all it contained would be far more in harmony with itself.

So I looked for the reason, if it could not be explained by evolution.

I looked again at the Bible and although some parts seem riddles and others contradictory to what a omnipotent being would be expected to do, with a little thought and investigation I decide to persue this further and found it was obvious that parts were not intended to be taken literally but you have to seek and find etc;

Since considering the above I came to the firm conclusion that there must be a creator and taking all things into consideration the Bible gives the most reasonable account.

During the past 70 years of my life I have had many examples of God's existance to my own undoubted satisfaction, just as you look towards scientists for answers, I look towards God and have never ever been disappointed.

Polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,  I considered the alternative that life came about by chance and evolution etc.

That's not an alternative to anything as evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with how life started. How can you expect anyone to take your claims that you are scientifically literate and understand Darwinian evolution seriously when you keep repeatedly conflating the two things?

Life didn't start purely by chance, as the universe is 14 bn years old, and has approximately a billion galaxies, our own galaxy is estimated to have about 100 billion stars, so the number of opportunities for life to have started is vast. This is largely a moot point as the fact is we are here, so the odds you're claiming are unlikely to have been overcome have demonstrably been overcome. What you're using is called the "lottery winner fallacy," the odds against someone winning the lottery is vast, but when a vast number of people take part the odds on there being a winner decrease, instead of people buying tickets, think planets orbiting 100 billion suns times a billion galaxies for 14bn years, and perhaps you can see where your thinking is flawed.

Lastly you're not shortening those odds by choosing a bronze age deity, on the contrary you're increasing them quite drastically, because as well as the previous odds of life starting you have to add the implausibility of a supernatural creation by a supernatural being, and one from many thousands that humans have created at that, the implausibility of supernatural events is self evident, as are bronze age myths and superstitions if you look at them with critical objectivity.

Polyglide wrote:I understood what Darwin said along with many other theories not one came close to explaining all that was required for all forms of life to come about by chance.

If you really understood Darwinian evolution you'd not make such obvious and egregious errors as conflating it with how life started, or describing it as just a theory.

Polyglide wrote:The only other alternative was a creator.

Which one, Zeus, Baal, Thor? Just a brief moment of critically objective thinking dismantles this claim, how can you limit the choices to just one? Even if you were the worlds foremost authority in cosmology and physics this statement would represent unbelievable hubris. Needless to say a believer who repeatedly claims he is 100% certain making a bombastic assertion about the veracity of his chosen beliefs amounts to nothing more than hubris.                  

Polyglide wrote:Then I looked at the state of the world , even in my younger days and decided that were there not some kind of evil around that could not be explained, then the world and all it contained would be far more in harmony with itself. So I looked for the reason, if it could not be explained by evolution.

One of the main driving mechanisms behind Darwinian evolution is survival of the fittest, it's an insentient force that can't reason or think, and doesn't therefore limit it's behaviour with morals, it has only one purpose to reproduce itself. Not only does this explain elegantly and simply why life involves ubiquitous suffering, it also lends a balance to nature that would not otherwise be there. Compare this to the paradox of a benevolent deity with limitless knowledge and power being able to create any kind of world it wants, but creating one that has the most appalling suffering and we can see why evolution is a vastly more plausible explanation, it is supported by a vast amount of evidence, it doesn't require any explanations that can't be tested and validated by science, unlike creationism, and of course unlike religion and creationism it keeps getting more and more evidence to support every single year. Compare that to the obviously erroneous claims in Genesis.

Polyglide wrote:I looked again at the Bible and although some parts seem riddles and others contradictory to what a omnipotent being would be expected to do, with a little thought and investigation I decide to persue this further and found it was obvious that parts were not intended to be taken literally but you have to seek and find etc;

It may be obvious to you but it was far from obvious to your religion, which took it literally until science started to uncover facts that either simply didn't support it, or directly refuted it. Lets not forget that many theists still take the bible literally, you yourself favour it over scientific facts.

Polyglide wrote:Since considering the above I came to the firm conclusion that there must be a creator and taking all things into consideration the Bible gives the most reasonable account.

 

Talking snakes and magic apples, days for a process that took 14 billions of years, a chronology that had the earth existing before the sun, and night and day before the sun, and all the stars being created in one go, that has humans being created in one go, with all animal life. Not only is that not the most reasonable account, it utterly erroneous as scientific facts have since shown. Of course if Genesis and the bible are entirely human in origin, and derived from the epoch that produced it, then it's perfectly reasonably for it to contain such errors, and absurd superstitions.                

Polyglide wrote: During the past 70 years of my life I have had many examples of God's existance to my own undoubted  satisfaction, just as you look towards scientists for answers, I look towards God and have never ever been disappointed.

Whilst I'd not want to deny you the right to beliefs you clearly hold dear, it seems obvious to me that all religious people make precisely this claim, and unless you're claiming to be a pantheist who believes in them all, then how can your own experiences of "God" be valid and theirs not?

It seems more plausible that what you and they are experiencing is a shared experience that you are ascribing to a specific deity, but may have any number of alternative explanations, equally if not more plausible.

Dr, Sheldon,
When I pray for guidance I pray to one God, the God of the Bible.

I am well aware of coincidence and all the other possible explanations and agree that in one or two instances this may be the case, however, when you have experienced many such instances and in accordance with prayer I am more than satisfied with my own faith.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                When I pray for guidance I pray to one God, the God of the Bible.

                I am well aware of coincidence and all the other possible explanations and agree that in one or two instances this may be the case, however, when you have experienced many such instances and in accordance with prayer I am more than satisfied with my own faith.

That's precisely the point I had made, every other believer can and often does make exactly the same claim for their deity. You've not explained why your claim should be any more valid than theirs? Self satisfaction is precisely what they would cite, and they'd claim they KNOW that their god is talking to them and proving it's existence. My point is it's impossible for you all to be right, those who worshipped Thor or Zeus or Baal or any of the many thousands of deities humans have invented show no less confidence that you do in your belief. Now whilst it is demonstrably impossible for you all to be right, it is possible for you all to be wrong, and all the tangible or empirical evidence is certainly pointing towards that.

The point is that belief with faith, let alone 100%, is a level of bias and certainty that will never show you anything you don't want to believe. Science by comparison, as you yourself have repeatedly pointed out, will discard any claim, idea, hypothesis, or even the most firmly established facts of any scientific theory if the evidence requires it. That isn't a weakness as you have suggested, but one of it's greatest strengths. Compare this to the way Christianity has clung to obviously erroneous dogma like a geocentric universe and no objective person could deny which is the better method for objectively seeking the truth.

At this point most religious apologist have long moved away from dogma and doctrine and start making vague assertions about different kinds of truths, that they claim go beyond the mere empirical nature of science. This last sentence is a helping hand as you seem determined to argue against fact rather than trying to circumvent it.  A literalistic approach is too easy to refute, as I suspect you already know at some level.

Though of course we'll then be left the implausibly unlikely scenario that a benevolent deity with limitless power and knowledge that wants only for us to discover it, is dealing in vague and confusing allegory with bronze age people, and risking everyone will incur an eternity of torture.

Dr, Sheldon,
I am well aware of the numerous changes in some religions to make them more acceptable, this is human nature at work, to compromise in any way, in my opinion, makes any religion not worthy of the name.

I know of no scientist who has any explanation of the origin of life, I know many who have dedicated their life to creating methods of mass destruction and others who have created both good and bad.

There is nothing wrong in seeking explanations for the unknown but all this does is explain how God's creations work etc;

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I am well aware of the numerous changes in some religions to make them more acceptable, this is human nature at work, to compromise in any way, in my opinion, makes any religion not worthy of the name.

The point you seem to be overlooking is that a message from a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, being wouldn't logically contain errors, least of all about such basic facts as the chronology of the formation of our universe, and how the diversity of life on this planet came about. The answer isn't clinging to ideas that are obviously wrong because you believe they're immutable, this is irrational, as can be seen from your denial of scientific facts like species evolution, and your desperate attempt to try and suggest it's less of a scientific fact than other scientific theories.

Polyglide wrote:I know of no scientist who has any explanation of the origin of life,

So what? I've explained countless times that this represents a well known common logical fallacy called Argumentum ad ignorantiam, or appeal to ignorance, LINK HERE.

Polyglide wrote:I know many who have dedicated their life to creating methods of mass destruction and others who have created both good and bad.

Neither of which afford any culpability to science, and I'm not sure why you're stubbornly refusing to acknowledge your obvious error here, as it must be obvious that the scientific method is not to blame for how we use it.

Polyglide wrote:  There is nothing wrong in seeking explanations for the unknown but all this does is explain how God's creations work etc;

Evidence? Hitchen's razor slash......You're also ignoring the many times science has uncovered facts that completely refute your religion claims, even the most basic ones about how the our solar system formed and the chronology. Simply repeating this claim when you can't evidence it is not going to convince me as I put no store in faith. One has only to briefly interview the worst delusional in a lunatic asylum to determine of how little use faith is in arriving at the truth. Believe what you wish, but simply claiming it doesn't make a compelling argument no matter how many times you repeat it.        

Dr, Sheldon,
I have at last found your problem regarding science.

You cannot understand the difference beween invention and science.

If you take away all that has been invented, often by pure chance and nothing to do with science, there would be very little left.

As I have repeated previously, all science does is prove how God created such wonderfull things.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I have at last found your problem regarding science.

I have no problem with science, beyond trying to get you to honestly acknowledge the basics which you seem determined to deny no matter how much they're evidenced.

Polyglide wrote: You cannot understand the difference beween invention and science.

Of course I can, don't be absurd. Science is a method for expanding knowledge, so blaming that method for how the knowledge is used is silly, as I have said it is like blaming a rock for murder when it used by someone to kill someone else.
               

Polygllide wrote:If you take away all that has been invented, often by pure chance and nothing to do with science, there would be very little left.

Take it way from what? What evidence have you that things are invented by pure chance? Very little of what left?

That's a truly incoherent piece of gibberish I'm afraid, but the knowledge that science has amassed in a very short space of time is a matter of record and truly astonishing, so clearly your derogation is again another example of YOUR problem with science, and I suspect derived from your inability to accept that knowledge comes from a source that does not require a god or a religion to be effective.

Polyglide wrote:  As I have repeated previously, all science does is prove how God created such wonderfull things.

     

Yes you have, and as I have said this a pretty meaningless claim, as it explains nothing, and offers no evidence for anything beyond a repetition of a bare claim. Whilst I get that you believe this, I'm just not sure what you hope to achieve by endlessly repeating it? I'll not be swayed by repetition of something for which you have no evidence, and in this entire discourse your claims for creationism seem to simply parrot creationists most clichéd falsehoods. You seem unwilling or unable to grasp the difference between real science that satisfies the very specific requirement s of the scientific process and the pseudo-science of creationists lies. You then alternate endlessly between claiming scientific evidence for supernatural causation, which by definition science must reject as it is not falsifiable, then claiming scientists have evidenced arguments for creationism, when you know they can't get those claims validated because they fail to satisfy such requirements as falsification and peer review. Then rather hilariously when I point this out you pretend it's some sort of obsession on my part, as if I personally could have any say in the methods sciences uses, it's all too silly I'm afraid.

Of course you will just ignore this again, and repeat your claim, and not even notice the irony of constantly derogating science, whilst craving scientific validation for your beliefs in this way.

Dr, Sheldon,
There have been more things created for humans to use for their benifit by inventors that have never heard or been interested in science, without which many functions would be either impossible or far more difficult.

As I have said previously all scientists do is explain the obvious, they have found cures for illnesses, the illnesses usually caused by humans, along with causing many children to be born without limbs etc; for one example and the number of people killed by the result of science in one form or another, healthy people, young and old far outways anything they have ever done.

No Christian needs a scientific peer review nor does the majority of everything in life, all that is subject to peer review is what a scientist or scientists think and the majority of peole I feel are not realy interested in people who once thought the world was flat.

Now you make all the claims for science and as the razor says the onus is on you to prove it.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, Now you make all the claims for science and as the razor says the onus is on you to prove it.

I've not made a single claim, science makes those claims and evidences them, not me. Science is a method for expanding knowledge, so blaming that method for how the knowledge is used is silly, as I have said it is like blaming a rock for murder when it used by someone to kill someone else.

Polyglide wrote:No Christian needs a scientific peer review

I never said they did, but if you insist on lying that science has evidenced supernatural superstitions then I'm going to insist you show such evidence. It's no good blaming me when it turns out you have none and don't even know what constitutes scientific evidence, or even understand the most basic principles like falsification and peer review.

Polyglide wrote:illnesses usually caused by humans,

Rubbish, you've been asked repeatedly to list these and can't, why keep repeating a lie that's already been exposed?

Polyglide wrote:all that is subject to peer review is what a scientist or scientists think and the majority of peole I feel are not realy interested in people who once thought the world was flat.

Translation please..

Polyglide wrote:Now you make all the claims for science and as the razor says the onus is on you to prove it.

No I don't, not a single one, I'm not a scientist, and I've never made a single scientific claim, ever. It's a little sad you can't tell the difference between posting a scientific claim someone else has made, and had validated by a specific and rigorous scientific process, and someone giving their own opinion, but this in a nutshell is why you don't understand the basics about science, and why you think theists who happen to be scientists making religious claims represents scientific evidence. It would benefit you enormously to learn the basic difference here, and your thinking might not be so skewed against a process you don't understand or even trust.

Dr, Sheldon,
The point is you make all your assumptions on scietific claims etc;

To keep on saying I do not understand science is like me sayng you do not undetstand religion and in particular Christianity, as far as I am conerned the only religion.

Just log on to human caused illnesses and you will find the answers to the question.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                The point is you make all your assumptions on scietific claims etc;

I make no assumptions at all, and that sentence contradicts itself as if the claims are scientific then they are by definition scientifically evidenced.

Polyglie wrote:To keep on saying I do not understand science is like me sayng you do not undetstand religion and in particular Christianity, as far as I am conerned the only religion.

In fairness I don't keep saying this, I have however shown quite specifically that you either don't or wont understand basic scientific principles and processes that you have shown in your posts you think your creationist claims can ignore,  and still claim scientific validity for them. It's no good blaming me, as you keep doing or accusing me of being obsessed. This is silly as the processes are the specific requirements of the scientific process, and I have no say in that, so if you cite something as a scientific claim when it doesn't qualify as it can't be falsified and isn't peer reviewed then that speaks for itself.

I don't understand religion, not have I ever claimed to do so. On the contrary I find religious beliefs irrational, illogical and much of it absurd.

Polyglide wrote:Just log on to human caused illnesses and you will find the answers to the question.

Oh dear, it was your claim and it's for you to evidence it, and I'm not wasting my time wading through another creationist blog filled with creationist propaganda, then taking the time to spell out why it's not scientifically valid only for you to ignore my post entirely and roll out another batch of claims, as you've done every time so far. Indeed you made multiple claims in your last post that aren't remotely true and when I took the time to answer them you have responded without even acknowledging them at all, it's extremely tiresome.  

You claimed most diseases are caused by humans, you've provided no evidence at all, so it's being dismissed as the unevidenced rubbish it is.

Dr, Sheldon,
There is no Hell and Everyone Is Saved.

I would subscribe to this.

I think everyone will be judged on how they have lived their life according to the knowledge they had regarding behaviour etc;