Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Roger Clough wrote: > Everything that God does by definition is just. > So much for religion giving morality a rock solid foundation, all it means is that God wants it. We should do good and avoid evil for one and only one reason, a loving God will torture us for eternity if we do not. Morali

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

r the end." -Woody Allen > > > - Receiving the following content - > From: Craig Weinberg > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-09-19, 17:11:45 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. > > > > > On Tuesday, S

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Hi meekerdb 1) That statement about Hell is hyperbole, an overstatement to get a point across. Jesus also said "Nobody who does not hate his mother and father can follow me." 2) I would reply to Epicurus that if he thinks life ios bad as it is, he has no idea how much worse it would be without

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Hi meekerdb You can only find the truth of the Bible by reading it as a little child. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen --- -

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

ppened with his resurrection. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-19, 17:11:45 Subject: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Hi Bruno Marchal The nazis did everything by the scientific method- using Darwin as a guide. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Hi Bruno Marchal God is just but he has to apply his justice to a contingent, imperfect world-- although Leibniz suggests that it is the best posible world. The scientific method cannot tell the just from the unjust. Would you trust your fate to the scientific method ? I sure wouldn't. Roger

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Hi Bruno Marchal Everything that God does by definition is just. God is righteous and he is justice itself. Perhaps it is not the best, but the best possible action in this contingent world. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/20/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woo

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 5:27:13 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: > > Hi Richard Ruquist > > Obeying the commandments will not get you into heaven, > only believing in Christ's sacrifice for us will do that. > > What kind of a sacrifice

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Hi Bruno March I was brought up in a loving Lutheran home, nothing like the monster land Brent invents. Such homes must be rare. Most children brought up in a fundmentalist home get back at their parents by becoming atheists. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/19/2012 "Forever is a long time

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Wed, Sep 19, Roger Clough wrote: > OK, genius. So, following impeccable logic, you believe you are John > Clark because from infancy people kept ramming down your thoat that you are > John Clark. > Yes. People told me that my name was "John Clark" and like all young children I believed them,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

oody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-18, 12:55:58 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Obeying the commandments will not ge

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 Roger Clough wrote: > there is no indisputable reason to believe in God. > Yes. > > Faith or trust is required In other words stupidity is required. > and that's exactly what God wants > God wants? GOD WANTS??!! The guy's omnipotent, God doesn't want, God has. John

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Obeying the commandments will not get you into heaven, only believing in > Christ's sacrifice for us will do that. > And you know that because you were told it over and over again from the very moment you learned language, and everything tha

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

g the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-17, 13:40:03 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >God loved the believers and hated the nonbelievers, at least t

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

The ages of life When a child, you believe in Santa Claus When you grow up, you don't believe in Santa Claus. When you're old, you are Santa Claus.l Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/18/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

on.net >> 9/17/2012 >> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him >> so that everything could function." >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Richard Ruquist >> Receiver: everything-list >

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

llowing content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-17, 13:53:40 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. Jesus said that he likes people to be hot or cold, atheists and theists that keep all the commandments, even ones he added like p

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Jesus said that he likes people to be hot or cold, atheists and theists that keep all the commandments, even ones he added like praying in a closet. The other people are the least in heaven, which BTW implies that we all make to heaven. He especially dislikes those who change or reinterprete his w

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >God loved the believers and hated the nonbelievers, at least that's what > the Bible tells us. > Yes that's what the Bible says, it says that a omnipotent omniscient being is pretending that He does not exist and He hates anyone that He has b

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

l save you. > The Gospel is the fulfillment of the laws. > > You only need to accept that fact for it to be > saved. > > > > o invent him > so that everything could function." > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: every

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

; > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-09-15, 12:03:08 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. > > Nonesense > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Roger Clough wrote: &g

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

thing could function." - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-16, 13:41:07 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 , Roger Clough wrote: > God loved the Israelites and hated their enemie

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-09-15, 12:03:08 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. > > Nonesense > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> >> He was talking about the 10 com

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

- Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-15, 12:03:08 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. Nonesense On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > He was talking ab

Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 , Roger Clough wrote: > God loved the Israelites and hated their enemies. > Well that hardly seems fair, and God hated a hell of a lot more of His creations than he loved. > God did heap down fire and brimstone on the enemies of his people. > I understand that, what I do

Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Hi John Clark On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: ROGER: >Intelligence ? I don't think the word was available back then (Bible days). JOHN: Welll, they certainly behaved as the didn't know what it meant to be intelligent, but then why is the bible worth reading toda

Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

6:28:02 Subject: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >Intelligence ? I don't think the word was available back then (Bible days). Well, they certainly behaved as the didn't know what it meant to be intellige

Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >Intelligence ? I don't think the word was available back then (Bible days). > Well, they certainly behaved as the didn't know what it meant to be intelligent, but then why is the bible worth reading today? Why not read something with a little

Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-09-15, 08:08:22 > Subject: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. > > Jesus did not do away with any OT laws. > He said so explicitly in the Sermon on the Mount. > > Mat

Re: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

...@verizon.net 9/15/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-15, 08:08:22 Subject: Re: Re: Re: the "nothing

Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

iz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > - Receiving the following content - > From: John Clark > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-09-14, 15:32:46 > Subject: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy

Re: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

eceiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-14, 15:32:46 Subject: Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy. On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > You're a slow learner. Maybe, but I'm smarter than the people in the Bible. As Bertrand Russell said "So f

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > You're a slow learner. Maybe, but I'm smarter than the people in the Bible. As Bertrand Russell said "So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." > Bible stories are generally based on true ha

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Hi Alberto G. Corona Physicalism is founded on unfounded assumptions. There is no physical certainly in this world. Get over it. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/14/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the fo

Re: Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Hi John Clark You're a slow learner. Science deals with facts, religion deals with values. So angular momentum and religion differ like apples and oranges. Myths about numerical values would be unintelligible. (Religious) values can only be taught and explained by myths and stories. Bible st

Re: Re: The "nothing but" fallacy in explaining away God (or anything)

Hi Bruno Marchal Good point. I hadn't thought about a "nothing but" problem with comp, but as with any evidence (such as a missing auto, or a possibly unfaithfuyl lover) you have to consider alternative explanations. Popper may have discussed this topic. Others certainly have. Roger Clough,