Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
that is the classic fallacy of the cart before the horse. God created them perfect, and with a free will to be imperfect. They chose to not be perfect.
No, a perfect person would never choose to do the wrong thing. The fact that they did shows they were never perfect.that is the classic fallacy of the cart before the horse. God created them perfect, and with a free will to be imperfect. They chose to not be perfect.
Again; that's not what I asked. Did God give man the ABILITY to hate beyond what animals are capable of! C'mon answer my question and quit making stuff up.God gave man a free will to chose to do evil in a way that animals don't have, according to the Bible.
No; Mirages are visual illusions that can be proven objectively. Care to try again?the existence of mirages is common knowledge, one cannot prove they exist without using and having faith in external sources,
No; numbers do not equal math. Just because a statement has numbers in it does not mean the statement is about math. C'mon you're better than this!there are no numbers in your example? If there are no numerical values, then there would be no math.
You never said anything about hundreds vs millions, you said murderous dictators of today are attacked, I gave you an example of one who was not, and now you are trying to say it doesn't count if it isn't millions that he killed. That's called "changing the goal posts" care to try again?my argument fails if killing hundreds is equivalent to killing millions. and you cannot prove that. So my point stands.
That suggests that choosing imperfection is the perfect choice.
Or are you suggesting that a perfect being could make an imperfect choice?
so you admit that you are using flawed logic. You say that intelligence has something to do with it, then backpeddle and say it's not linear, even when you just applied it in a linear fashion. So I will apply it as you have applied it, in a linear fashion. Secondly, you use arguments that rely on the fact that love evolved due to increases in intelligence between humans and say apes. However I have proven that there is no evidence that IQ increases love. If anything more intelligent people have more mood disorders, which equates to being less patient with those of less intelligence. Check this article for that reference: Bad News for the Highly IntelligentObviously intelligence has something to do with it, since it takes some intelligence to recognize other beings as being sentient and so forth.
But nobody is arguing that there's a linear relationship between intelligence and compassion.
No God did not give that ability, because it's not an ability at all. Hate is a lack of ability. So God did not give mankind a negative ability, which is no ability at all.Again; that's not what I asked. Did God give man the ABILITY to hate beyond what animals are capable of! C'mon answer my question and quit making stuff up.
go ahead and give your best evidence for mirages. Again, you just said you can prove they exist. So by all means, proving something means doing the studies yourself and not having faith in someone elses work, that can be tainted, falsified or otherwise wrong. So when you do those studies and publish them in a peer review. I can reject them because they were not done by myself, and seeing I don't trust people to do proper work, I would have to do the studies myself. But then it self defeats publishing it in peer review, because no one else can or should trust my efforts, because I am a creationist and may be biased. So again, I don't think you can prove any of that.No; Mirages are visual illusions that can be proven objectively. Care to try again?
funny how when I look up real numbers on wikipedia, that the first statement says "in mathmatics" Real number - WikipediaNo; numbers do not equal math. Just because a statement has numbers in it does not mean the statement is about math. C'mon you're better than this!
no you said that killing hundreds made him equal with a person that killed millions. But did not prove that assertion. So as soon as you prove that assertion we can move on, as you seem to be having a problem with mathmatics in the last few posts.You never said anything about hundreds vs millions, you said murderous dictators of today are attacked, I gave you an example of one who was not, and now you are trying to say it doesn't count if it isn't millions that he killed. That's called "changing the goal posts" care to try again?
What!?so you admit that you are using flawed logic. You say that intelligence has something to do with it, then backpeddle and say it's not linear, even when you just applied it in a linear fashion. So I will apply it as you have applied it, in a linear fashion. Secondly, you use arguments that rely on the fact that love evolved due to increases in intelligence between humans and say apes. However I have proven that there is no evidence that IQ increases love. If anything more intelligent people have more mood disorders, which equates to being less patient with those of less intelligence. Check this article for that reference: Bad News for the Highly Intelligent
a perfect being can make an imperfect choice. Because a perfect being has a free will to do right or wrong. God for instance can lie, or cheat or steal. But He would cease from being God at that moment, I believe and cease from being perfect. The same with us, we were created perfect, and part of that perfection was a choice to do right or wrong. As why would a being be perfect, if they never chose to be? So yes free will is still perfect, but it is what they do with their free will that mattered.
No, a lack of love or a lack of hate would be the neutral position; not good nor bad. Hate is to assert negative behavior.No God did not give that ability, because it's not an ability at all. Hate is a lack of ability. So God did not give mankind a negative ability, which is no ability at all.
A mirage is the bending of light. Anyone who knows how light works understands this. Your ignorance does not prove you right.go ahead and give your best evidence for mirages. Again, you just said you can prove they exist. So by all means, proving something means doing the studies yourself and not having faith in someone elses work, that can be tainted, falsified or otherwise wrong.
The tempature of boiling water does not fit into the category of a real number; according to the link you providedfunny how when I look up real numbers on wikipedia, that the first statement says "in mathmatics" Real number - Wikipedia
Which post number did I say this?no you said that killing hundreds made him equal with a person that killed millions. But did not prove that assertion. So as soon as you prove that assertion we can move on, as you seem to be having a problem with mathmatics in the last few posts.
linear according to websters means "relating to, based on, resembling."What!?
I've never said there's a linear relationship between intelligence and compassion. I'm saying the two have something to do with each another. It's not complicated. Compare it to having lots of money and driving a pretty modern car. Generally speaking there is obviously a relationship there, but it's not linear. Money and cars are connected, but that doesn't mean if I have 15% more money than you, my car will be 15% nicer.
And sure, higher intelligence comes with pros and cons, that's common knowledge. Just like there's a link between creativity and mood disorders: if you're very creative you're more likely to have bipolar disorder, and vice versa.
do you honestly believe if you don't love someone, that you are neutral toward them? Say a girl loves you and she wants to marry you and she asks? Do you love me? And you say, I am neutral. Do you think she will be happy? Or feel rejected? The love she has has not been reciprocated. In essence not loving her is the same as hating her. because in that situation hating someone and not loving them have the same affect. Does that make sense? When we say we don't love someone, we are saying that we love ourself more and hate them. When we don't love our enemies, we are saying we love ourselves more than our enemies, and in essence hate them. When we love our enemies more than ourselves, we are loving them and hating ourselves, love is the opposite of selfishness. Love of others is self hatred. Hating others is the opposite of love.No, a lack of love or a lack of hate would be the neutral position; not good nor bad. Hate is to assert negative behavior.
again you are using external sources to define it. Have you personally studied a mirage and found out that it is in fact true that it bends light? Or are you having faith in other people who have studied this? I presume the later. And this is not proof.A mirage is the bending of light. Anyone who knows how light works understands this. Your ignorance does not prove you right.
I think you should probably look up the definition of real number before talking more on this.The tempature of boiling water does not fit into the category of a real number; according to the link you provided
OK, I guess I used the term wrong then. What I meant by linear is when two things are directly tied together so that an increase in A necessarily increases B by the same amount.linear according to websters means "relating to, based on, resembling."
then you say "the two have something to do with each other."
so they are related, and according to websters, that is the same as a linear relationship.
Definition of "Linear" according to Webster'slinear according to websters means "relating to, based on, resembling."
No, you didn't use it wrong.OK, I guess I used the term wrong then. What I meant by linear is when two things are directly tied together so that an increase in A necessarily increases B by the same amount.
OK, I guess I used the term wrong then. What I meant by linear is when two things are directly tied together so that an increase in A necessarily increases B by the same amount.
sorry sir I am not addressing your posts anymore, you may have valid points here, I suggest messaging them to someone else, so that they can be addressed. That is if you are serious about having an open dialogue with me, and not just trying to sabotage things I say because you hate christianity.Definition of "Linear" according to Webster's
of, relating to, resembling, or having a graph that is a line and especially a straight line
of, relating to, based on, or being linear equations, linear differential equations, linear functions, linear transformations, or linear algebra
You can't just cut definitions off wherever you please. Let me parse those sentences for you:
Relating to a graph that is a line and especially a straight line;
or resembling a graph that is a line and especially a straight line;
or having a graph that is a line and especially a straight line.
Relating to linear equations, linear differential equations, linear functions, linear transformations, or linear algebra;
or based on linear equations, linear differential equations, linear functions, linear transformations, or linear algebra;
or being linear equations, linear differential equations, linear functions, linear transformations, or linear algebra.
No, you didn't use it wrong.
do you honestly believe if you don't love someone, that you are neutral toward them? Say a girl loves you and she wants to marry you and she asks? Do you love me? And you say, I am neutral. Do you think she will be happy? Or feel rejected? The love she has has not been reciprocated.
In essence not loving her is the same as hating her. because in that situation hating someone and not loving them have the same affect. Does that make sense?
When we say we don't love someone, we are saying that we love ourself more and hate them. When we don't love our enemies, we are saying we love ourselves more than our enemies, and in essence hate them.
When we love our enemies more than ourselves, we are loving them and hating ourselves, love is the opposite of selfishness. Love of others is self hatred. Hating others is the opposite of love.
again you are using external sources to define it. Have you personally studied a mirage and found out that it is in fact true that it bends light? Or are you having faith in other people who have studied this? I presume the later. And this is not proof.
I did. There is no calculation done concerning the temperature water boils thus it is not math. Your argument failed.I think you should probably look up the definition of real number before talking more on this.
LOL You know it ain't cause I hate Christianity. How are those results to that challenge you asked me to give you going? It's been a couple days now, are you seeing that all us dirty atheists get along just fine with the other Christians?sorry sir I am not addressing your posts anymore, you may have valid points here, I suggest messaging them to someone else, so that they can be addressed. That is if you are serious about having an open dialogue with me, and not just trying to sabotage things I say because you hate christianity.
I can't prove that X amount of intelligence leads to Y amount of compassion. I mean I guess I could find some scientific paper on it, and then we could argue forever about whether it's actually possible to prove anything but mathematics or whatever. But to me it appears to be self-evident that a grown human has a more sophisticated capacity for compassion and moral judgments (like the trolley problem) than a chimpanzee or a small child, and that it is directly connected to mental faculties like empathy, intelligence etc. And like I said before, that explains why humans have a stronger tendency for sacrificial love.that would be an unusual situation. Normally a linear relationship is like say for example you have 0-100% which indexes 4-20mA, so 50% would be 12mA, 75% would be 16mA and 25% would be 8mA. That is a linear relationship, even if 1 does not equate to 1 on the other. For example 1mA on one scale is not the same a 1% of the other scale. They are still linear however. But to say that an increase in A increases B by the same amount exactly is sort of rare. But this doesn't help your argument, because you said that compassion and intelligence are related. To prove this assertion, you would have to prove for example that someone with 10 IQ points higher, is more loving that someone with 10 IQ points lower to prove your point that intelligence is related to compassion. I just provided an example. But there is no evidence that I am aware of that proves that assertion, so really it should be tossed out. And the question still lies, why do humans have more sacrificial love than animals?
from your perspective it's not hate, but it is from hers.Of course she will be upset, but just because you don’t love her does not mean you hate her.
but hating does not mean physically manifesting that in anger, you can hate someone and not manifest it.No. Just because you don’t want to marry someone does not mean you want to kill them.
I don't disagree with this. But when you hate yourself out of love for others, it is not possible to hate them while hating yourself.It is possible to hate yourself and hate your enemies.
like I said before, from your perspective you are neutral, but not from others perspectives. One guage on if we are loving correctly is if the audience of your love notices it. If they don't notice your neutrality, then most likely it is not truly neutral. And I go one step further, I would tend to believe that what we view as neutral is not really neutral when seen from the outside. I don't feel we have a very innate ability to be neutral on most topics. We say we are, but when prodded on relevant topics about such subjects we tend to reveal we are not neutral.Love is to assert an emotional feeling, hate is to assert the opposite emotional feeling. To assert no feeling at all is natural
sorry to break it to you, peer reviews are not proof. Scientific consensus is not proof. While they may build on your evidence. Scientists a few hundred years ago universally believed in God, and even the majority today (51% or so), believe in the existence of God. Does that mean He exists? You would rightly claim that that is an appeal to the populus, which has not truth value. What the majority believe, does not make it true. Evidence and more specifically proof, makes it true.Whether the peer reviewed study comes from me or someone else, it is still proof. If you disagree feel free to prove it wrong; otherwise don’t expect someone else to take your word that it is false.
wait, in your last post you said that temperature does not deal with real numbers. Lets talk about that, did you look it up and realize that this statement is wrong? It's ok. I won't harp on you. But yes temperature deals with mathmatical concepts, even though there is no arithmatic involved. It uses real numbers, which is within the scope of a mathmatics class.I did. There is no calculation done concerning the temperature water boils thus it is not math. Your argument failed.
from your perspective it's not hate, but it is from hers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?