Dont feed the Bridge Troll ;) — DingoJones

If someone does not try to feed them, they will die of ignorance(sorry) hunger.

"Going from stupid to well-read, what essential classics would get a person there fastest?"

Start by calling yourself ignorant instead of stupid. That always helps.

Isaac Asimov - The foundation Collection
Daniel C. Dennett - From Bacteria to Bach and Back
Daniel Klein - Every Time I Find the Meaning of Life
Lawrence Krauss - The Greatest Story Ever Told--So Far Why Are We Here

Physicists’ theories and evidence-suppored laws are based on their observations. They don’t have a theory about a physical god, because they don’t have observations about it.
.
Science studies and describes this physical universe and the inter-relations of its constituent parts. Physicists have no observations about a physical god, and therefore no theory about one. How would you like them to study God?
. — Michael Ossipoff

And there you go again, missing the point entirely and continuing to harp on about your assertions that you have never made that science cannot study god.

I’d be glad to give a reason for any assertion that I’ve made to you. — Michael Ossipoff

Which is what I asked for.

Your notion is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far, and is something regarding which physicists have no evidence whatsoever, and therefore is of great interest only to you. — Michael Ossipoff

The "suggested so far" of the statement is the key there.
And no one has any evidence to the contrary either. And it is not of great interest to me. I could not care one way or the other. But you appear to be most sure of what you say.

Compared to a few years ago the knowledge that science has acquired is astounding, but science still knows so little about our own planet that there are new animals, plants, and sicknesses being discovered almost daily.

Science studies black holes, or so they say.
Along with that they study the background radiation that they say is the remains of the BIG BANG.
Science studies germs and microscopic little beasties that are too small to see.
Science studies thought processes through the use of electronic brain scans.
Plants and animals are being genetically engineered.
And a whole load of other things that were unknown and even unimaginably at one time.
This is just the science of today, what will the science of tomorrow be like? What might be "suggested" by the science of the future?

Many people got laughed at and ridiculed because of their ideas. It was not so long ago in the history of mankind that if you talked to people that were not present you could be in for problems, nowadays almost everyone does it.

Science is full of discoveries made by accident but a lot of discoveries have come from small bits of information or ideas about what to look for. Not all of them had been observed before the theory about them appeared.
The "god particle" had never been observed but mathematics said it might be there. So they devised a plan to find it.
Neutrinos are something else that science has spent lots of time trying to detect, but they only have the results of them passing through other mediums to show their existence as they are not in any way visible.

To say that science only studies and creates theories about what can be observed is naive. Sometimes theories about something are what leads to an experiment that leads to a discovery. If it were true that science only studies and creates theories about what can be observed we would still be living in caves.

But back to the point you missed. The question I asked you was.

How do you know there is not a material god?

It has nothing at all to do with science studying god, it has nothing to do with whether you believe in god and it is certainly not a religious question. It is just a simple question about something you know.

But please don't spend any of your time trying to answer, it would be better spent doing some reading of scientific journals.

And yes, I accept your apology for confusing me with someone else and for the insulting behavior you used.
Oh sorry, forget that last line.

You asked me a question about religion. — Michael Ossipoff

No I did not. I quite simple asked you how you know there is no god in the physical world. That is not a religious question, but an inquiry about your knowledge. You have said several times that scientist do not study things like god because they only study physical things, how do they knew that god is not part of the physical world?

Oh, alright, so you’re saying that you didn’t ask to find out something, but instead were just asking in order to prove that you’re right, as a matter of debate (which you deny later in the posts I’m replying to). — Michael Ossipoff

I am not trying to prove anything, I have made no claims that need to be proven.

Can you understand that not everyone is interested in your debate or inclined to cooperate?
If it weren’t your issue, you wouldn’t complain about my not answering you about it. (…because I don’t regard Theism vs Atheism as a debate-issue) — Michael Ossipoff

So why do you keep answering me if it is not to try to prove that you are right? And it is not my debate, I just gave my opinion and then you jumped all over it try to tell me I am wrong.

Yes, and that’s an example of the astounding naiveté that I referred to. …your persistent, unshakable belief that matters of God or ultimate Reality can be proved, or even meaningfully asserted.
.
Sorry--I (and you too) can’t prove anything about God.
so only you know why you wanted me to prove that there isn’t. — Michael Ossipoff

So you cannot and no one else can prove anything about god, yet you insist that god cannot be studied by science. Again, how do you know that? I thought that you wanted a discussion, so let's talk about that.

You assert that people who don’t share your beliefs about the character and nature of Reality (in regard to Theism, for example) have an unreasonable belief. — Michael Ossipoff

Where did I state my views about the character and nature of reality? Please, if nothing else, answer this question.

You mean your issue about God being physical?
Believe in a physical God if you want to. — Michael Ossipoff

I have no issue with non existing things being physical. It does not make sense that after I tell you (several times) that I do not believe that there is such a thing as a god that you keep on mentioning this.
It is not the god that I am interested in but your absolute certainty and confidence that there is no way that a god can be studied by scientists. How can you be so certain?

What seems a bit irrational about that is your great concern about it and demand for a proof about it.
I don’t know of any reason to believe in that belief that you keep promoting. Sorry to dash your hopes. — Michael Ossipoff

I am not promoting any belief, why should I? I ask only that you share the reasons for your beliefs. If that is too much then I am sorry for bother you.

Your nuisance results from your inability to leave it at that. — Michael Ossipoff

I am not a rude person no matter what you think, so I will not stoop to answer.

But I’m not even sure what you mean when you propose a physical God. Your notion about that is contrary to what is suggested by physics so far. — Michael Ossipoff

Even though you are not sure what I mean, I am wrong. That is fantastic.
I do not propose a physical god, I ask you how you know that one does not exist. And there are so many things that go against what is suggested by physics so far, for the simple reason that physics has not gotten very far explaining the universe.

You didn’t call me a name. Your namecalling consisted of calling some unspecified belief of mine “silly nonsense”. Namecalling. — Michael Ossipoff

Actually, if you read the thread properly, I did not. Even though I do agree with Jeremiah when he calls you names.
But lets look at the gentle slurs and put downs you like to throw around shall we.
astounding naiveté
your naïve delusional conceit
a bit irrational
dogmatic bigotry
loud aggressive Atheists
dogmatically-wedded
aggressive-Atheist persuasion
An excusable error. Don’t feel bad.
Dream on.
What he meant (or would have meant if he knew what he was saying) was:

You called dragons fiction, but they have found fossils that quiet easily could have been the base for those ideas.
Some scientist think that all of the wonderful things they discover show the work of god and that by studying them they are learning more about god. Are they wrong?

Here is a crazy idea: Could it be that there is no evidence because it is not real? I think there is a very strong possibility of that. — Jeremiah

I told him that, he did not seem to understand the concept.

But you almost got it right.
.Dream on.
.
What did I just finish saying in my previous reply? I said that if you want religious instruction, then I refer you to a church or a divinity-school.
.
And I’ll repeat, yet again, that my comments on the subject are all over these forums, at various threads. — Michael Ossipoff

.
I think that I made it very clear that I was not looking for religious instruction, having had way to much of that is why I am a non believer. What I asked for if you read it carefully is the proof that you have that god is not part of the physical world. You are insisting that you are right and that I am wrong even though I have not stated the there is a god that is part of the physical world.
It seems as though everyone else has to provide text book evidence but we have to accept your word for it there it is impossible. I have admitted that I do not believe that god is within the physical world or that there is even a god. I also admit that I do not believe there is a god, even though I have no proof of it.
You on the other hand are insistent that even thinking about such things being possible is irrational.
So what do you know that can prove that there is no god in the physical universe?

But, due to your conceited namecalling bigotry, your thoroughgoing sureness that you’re right, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong—Those attributes of yours make nonsense of any notion of a worthwhile conversation with you. Believe what you want.

What name did I call you and where did I do it? Where you by any chance looking at the mirror or reading your own posts when you wrote this.
— Michael Ossipoff

Declare yourself the winner of your debate.You want to search for a God that’s part of this physical universe? Go for it. — Michael Ossipoff

If, from the beginning you had tried to understand what I said instead of inventing your own versions you would know that I have no interest in winning any of your silly competitions. I have stated so in many of my posts here. You are the one that is being competitive and trying to force people to agree with you by making silly childish remarks about their posts.

If you want a worthwhile discussion then you have to put your part into it. Making claims about textbooks and telling others their ideas are absurd will not get you anywhere at all.

If you really think that science can only study the physical world the explain the following.
How can you prove something is of the physical world? Try it with thought if you want or dreams.
Why are scientist studying the possibility of existence of the souls after death?
Why are some scientist religious?

As I've said, the only word for that statement is "hillarious". It's a really silly thing to say, given that science can, and is intended to, only study and describe this physical universe (and maybe any physically-inter-related multiverse of which it's a part) and relations among its constituent parts. — Michael Ossipoff

And I guess I mistakenly thought that science was about investigation in search of new information. But just one question, how do you know that god is not part of this physical universe? Could you maybe cite some articles to back up your statements. You seem so sure of these "facts" that I an really interested in seeing what you base your conclusions on.

"As far as I am concerned there is only one possible reason why a god could not be studied scientifically, the lack of existence."

Sir2u means "...lack or physical existence (which only a few denominations claim).
— Sir2u

" If there is any evidence for a god then eventually someone will find it."
— Michael Ossipoff

No I do not mean "...lack or physical existence". I meant exactly what I said, that if something exists it can be studied, therefore the only reason anyone could not study it is because it does not exist. Try studying the dragons, or the leprechauns. Not going to get very far are you?

Evidence doesn't mean proof. Merriam-Webster defines evidence as "outward sign". — Michael Ossipoff

It also has several other definitions, selective use of definitions is childish.
Evidence ; Your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief : An indication that makes something evident :

Evidence therefore doesn't prove an assertion, and doesn't conclusively win a debate. — Michael Ossipoff

But which ever definition you want to use makes no difference to what I said. If there is evidence anywhere, eventual someone will find it. And if there is no evidence then, obviously, it will never be found. And that statement is true for both sides, believers and non believers.

You don't know what every Theist's belief is, or what outward-sign they have for it.

You can say that if no Theist has given you a good argument regarding the existence of God, then you win your argument or debate. That's alright. As far as I'm concerned, if you want an argument or debate, then congratulations--You win your argument or debate by default.

But you can't validly say that you know everyon'e believe and their outward-sign in support of it. You can say that you don't know of any evidence or other reason to believe that there's God. No one will argue with you or criticize that position.

And don't show the astounding pretensiousness and conceit of claiming to know, or have a sound argument about, overall Reality as a whole.

Assertion, proof, argument and debate are irrelevant, inapplicable and meaningless for matters involving the character and nature of overall Reality as a whole. — Michael Ossipoff

I have no idea why you are blathering on about what every Theist's belief is, or the rest of this for that matter, I never mentioned it. I have no idea what their beliefs.

You keep claiming that science can study God, which makes you at odds with pretty much all of science. — LD Saunders

No I do not, I said that there is no reason why science should not be able to investigate the existence of things. Including gods, ghost and a host of supernatural things. And I have also said that there are scientists that do try to explain them and therefore have to study them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-a-paranormal-activity-lab-at-the-university-of-virginia/283584/

A basic introductory science textbook will typically explain to beginning students that science does not address the God issue, or issues regarding alleged angels, demons, ghosts, any supernatural claim. — LD Saunders

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/10/22/the-top-8-paranormal-scientific-studies-what-we-can-learn-from-them/

Some one had better tell these guys about that. We would not want them to look silly would we?

Please give me the names of these typical text books as I have looked in those on my shelf and none of them do that. I also looked in several sociology, psychology and a couple of physics text books and none have that disclaimer either. Sounds like BS to me. I have worked in education for almost 30 years and have never seen that written in any book.

Certainly. no scientist to date has ever devised an experiment to falsify God existing. What would that experiment even consist of? It's nonsense that you are advocating, and it's certainly not science. — LD Saunders

How sure are you of this statement? Many scientist have tried to explain god in other ways from the common image of it. And many have used scientific data to reason their way to the conclusion that there is or is not a god.

https://kenboa.org/apologetics/scientific-evidence-of-gods-existence/
http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn5bKALeSyM

But all they have done is to say that science does not prove that gods don't exist, they cannot say that that it never will. The simple fact that they are investigating the workings of the universe might mean that at any time they could find proof of its existence or lack of existence. The book is not closed yet.

When I was studying for my physics degree in college, I never once dealt with the issue of God or anything supernatural. It simply falls outside the scope of science. — LD Saunders

Sixty years ago quantum physics was not in many physics courses either, go figure. Maybe it did not exist back then. Or maybe they had not researched it enough to include it.
And I find it strange that a person with a college degree in physics has not figured out how to use the "QUOTE" function on a Philosophy Forum.

Sir2U: I noticed you failed to cite to any science textbook that supports your position, nor were you able to state any experiment that could falsify the existence of any and all Gods. — LD Saunders

That would mostly be because I never claimed that they existed so why should I even bother to try and cite them. But by the same standard you have failed to cite any of the textbooks used at any of the major western universities that you talk so much about.

You also have no proof that no God of any kind exists, — LD Saunders

Neither do you, so I guess that makes us even.

so you are simply an irrational person. — LD Saunders

So you cannot find anything of value to say, so you start insulting people. Typical of your type of bullshitter.

You believe no God exists, without having any reasonable basis for your claim. — LD Saunders

How do you know this? How do know that I do not have a reasonable basis for what ever claim you think I made. I would like to know exactly what claim you think I made as well.

I, on the other hand, am rational in my position. I don't believe in any God because I find the evidence insufficient, — LD Saunders

What evidence? How can you rationalize nothing? It seems to be nothing more than a whim that you have become a non believer because there is exactly the same amount of evidence on both sides of the debate. Did you flip a coin to decide.

but am not claiming that I know no God of any kind exists. — LD Saunders

And where exactly did I make that statement?

I also am rational in recognizing the scope and limits of science, and do not let my religious views, atheism, distort science so it coincides with my beliefs. — LD Saunders

The only limits that sciences has ever had are the ones put on it by religious views. Where would we be now if the church had not screwed up the beginnings of the scientific endeavor with the inquisition.
Only those that have religion have beliefs, the rest of us reasoning folks have educated opinions.
Period

Red team says; scientist are incapable of nor should be allowed to opine on the existence of god and are unable to prove its non existence.

Blue team says; religious leaders are allowed to and able to opine on god but have no proof of its existence.

Most scientist really don't have strong opinions that they want to share, so a ban on them saying things would be basically worthless. And time is not up yet to prove there is no god, maybe someone will one day take a shot at it.

If red team comes up with proof of existence it might change the game, but I wont wait around for that to happen.

Red team has to lose.

Identify a single textbook in science used at any major western university that states science can even answer the question of whether a God exists? — LD Saunders

Show me a single textbook used by any major western university that states physics addresses any supernatural claim? It doesn't exist. — LD Saunders

Show me the books you have read, from primary school on up, on the scientific method and maybe I will consider answering any further posts as long as you use the "quote" function so that I you you have replied.

Sorry there, but you do not understand the scope of science. Physics does not address the existence of everything. Does it address the existence of numbers? Or morality? Of the supernatural? Of God? No. Show me a single textbook used by any major western university that states physics addresses any supernatural claim? It doesn't exist. — LD Saunders

So some scientists comes up with a wonderful idea, from a mathematical equation it appears that there should be more mass in the universe than there is visible. "Let's look for dark matter" they say and start trying to prove it exists by designing experiments to detect it.

A lot of their work is trying to prove the existence of things. The cause of a rare sickness is unknown until they prove that a gene dysfunction that no one new existed was the cause.

There are plenty of examples of scientists trying to prove the existence of things.

If there is a god somewhere there must be evidence, lots of christian scientists try to find that evidence. Some religions use scientific knowledge to prove that god exists, how could that be possible?

It is only in philosophical think that they are kept apart.

Physics addresses many "supernatural" claims. Are ghosts really nothing more than the energy leaving the body at the moment of death? The claim was investigated and the results were never neither for or against the idea, mainly because they have not figured out the way to investigate it properly. But they did find that there was a certain loss of bodily wait a short while after death.

https://futurism.com/the-physics-of-death/

Oh dear and then there is this guy Sir Roger Penrose that claims to be a physicist,(one of those people that studies physics I think) making these weird claims about supernatural things called souls. The actual article about his ideas is sort of beyond my idea of reading for pleasure so this a fun SUN version.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2123380/researchers-claim-that-humans-have-souls-which-can-live-on-after-death/

There have been many scientific studies on morality.
https://www.edge.org/event/the-new-science-of-morality

Physics only addresses material claims and makes no claims outside of the material. Period. — LD Saunders

Physics is the science of matter and energy and their interactions. That covers everything in the universe and quite a lot of what is thought to be outside of it, other universe maybe.

Science itself has no limit to what it can investigate, but neither general science nor physics in particular go about making any claims about anything unless it has been investigated first.
PERIOD.

Galileo didn't try to apply science outside its legitimate range of applicability. He studied and advanced physics.

In fact, Galileo famously clarified and emphasized the inapplicability of science and religion to eachother. — Michael Ossipoff

According to the way of thinking in those days he was way out of line with what was acceptable. Both by the Scientific and religious leaders. The fact that he emphasized the in-applicability of science and religion to each other made him more unpopular.

But not being compatible does not mean that science does not mean that science can not try to scientifically explain god, after all religions have been trying for years to explain science religiously.

As far as I am concerned there is only one possible reason why a god could not be studied scientifically, the lack of existence. If there is any evidence for a god then eventually someone will find it. I wont be waiting around for that to happen though.

There's no such thing as a "scientific case" in physics for a position on a matter not within physics' legitimate range of applicability.

Attempt to apply science outside of is legitimate range of applicability is pseudoscience. — Michael Ossipoff

Tell that to Galileo.

Science has no fixed range of applicability. Everything anything can be investigated scientifically.

A scientist's opinion on the existence of God seems to me to carry no special weight, as science does not address the issue of whether a God exists — LD Saunders

Physics addresses the existence of everything. Do you think that the Pope has any better proof that god exists?
Most believers state that everything that exists is proof of god, so why would a scientist's evidence (after investigating the universe) that there is no god be viewed as less worthy than the Pope's evidence that there is one?

Therefore, how do you create a narrative in philosophy that encompasses all the thoughts of different philosophers? Can that be done in any shape, manner, or form? — Posty McPostface

Faery tales.

What's that? — Posty McPostface

Everything that is not covered by philosophical pessimism. I would have thought that it was obvious. :wink:

Excessive self-reflection and the issue that philosophy must deal with being philosophical pessimism. — Posty McPostface

I guess that that is as good a reason as anything.

Maybe if you stop staring at your bellybutton you will lean more towards philosophy optimism.

I'm acutely aware of this fact and feel compelled to express my satisfaction with self-absorbed topics of my interest. — Posty McPostface

And just which topics might those be?

Others would agree. — Posty McPostface

I guess that there is a possibility that it is so, but what do you base this pronouncement on?

I just had a week off. Does that count? — Banno

I had 5 days of holidays, and it rained on every single one of them. Murphie's Law rules the universe.

Just as a joking thread, what's the remission rate around here if we are to believe philosophy as therapy? — Posty McPostface

Would philosophy not be the disorder and this forum the therapist's office?

Something else about goats that I just found out, they like human piss.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/goats-airlifted-national-park-developing-thirst-human-urine-084218375.html

But this misses the point. Even if I have no faith at all in the eternal and ubiquitous existence of the Great Goat, my question of his origin still remains. — Hanover

No, it clearly addressed your question. Being everything he is the origin, the end and everything in the middle. There was nothing before him and naught will there be after him because he is all there is.

:up: :point: :pray:

Where did goats come from? Isn't that the fundamental question, regardless of the failed attempts to answer it? — Hanover

The Great Goat is, and always has been. He is timeless and exist everywhere at all times.

Have a little faith and just believe.

Evidence? Doubt makes no sense here. This is not a question that is liable to the vagaries of justification.

That is, your doubt tells us nothing about goats, but much about you. — Banno

Oh, now I see the light. Of course all i need is faith, the rest will follow.

I am convinced, I have become a believer.

Hail the Great Goat.

Do you think he would mind if we called him GG from now on, The Great Goat is just so over whelming.

Indeed, most of the criticisms here have been to the effect it is not the case that goats eat everything. — Banno

As is the case of a god knowing everything, facts that cannot be proven are not facts. Show show your evidence.

This thread lacks direction. I suggest we close it. — Posty McPostface

Just thought of something else a thread should not have, negativism.

As a wise Martian, Uncle Martin, once said "The mind is like a parachute, it works best when it is open"

There haven't been any other goat threads that l know of.

Other than that, you seem a bit confused, — BaldMenFighting

So you don't know Banno.

That's your hard luck.

We know that goats eat everything. This is undeniable. — Banno

My friend has both goats and sheep, never has a sheep been eaten by a goat. First premise wrong.

If A eats B, B cannot eat A; a moment's reflection will show this must be true. — Banno

If B has been eaten already this is true, but if B eats A first then it is not.

SO it follows that either there is an indefinite gastronomic chain, such that goat 1 is eaten by goat 2, which in turn is eaten by goat 3, and hence that there is never a goat that is not eaten by some other goat; — Banno

Actually it does not follow, there could quite easily be a case where one goat is more interested in eating your underpants and has no interest in other goats. Or several goats eating other goats at the same time which would make it a multi-thread gastronomic chain instead of an indefinite gastronomic chain.

or there is one goat that eats every goat; the Great Goat. — Banno

Either goats would have to reproduce like rabbits before being eaten or the Great Goat would soon go hungry and become non-existent.

But since goats eat everything, there is something that eats the Great Goat. — Banno

Already dismissed as a fallacy.

The traditional answer is of course that the Great Goat eats itself. The self-inflicted suffering of the Great Goat gives meaning to our own suffering. — Banno

OH NO! That would start another thread on infinite eternity. Please don't do that.

Now I hope that this short commentary helps divest you of any gnawing doubts. One hopes it will put an end to the mental mastication hereabouts, but that may be too much to imbibe. — Banno

Now I hope that this reply to your short commentary helps divest you of any chewing (excuse the pun) doubts. One hopes it will put an end to the mental masturbation hereabouts, but that may be too much to imbibe.

But all is not lost, there is still hope for the Great Goat.
A benevolent Great Goat would not want his followers to suffer, so at the end of their non cannibalistic lives he invites then to the Great Pasture in the sky. And then eats them.

Has anyone one else thought about how well this thread is progressing?

And I was just thinking of a piece of blueberry pie! — Bitter Crank

Some call a moderator, this is definitely off topic.

And thank you for the detailed explanation of a duck's sex organs. Thank the lord you did not find a video about it.

Maybe you were having a touch of oppositional defiant disorder that day and just couldn't accept the authority of the guide. — Bitter Crank

That's doubtful, he was one of those honey voiced, sweet talking people. I can still hear him saying "Gather around but let the little ones come to the front so that they can see".

Better to develop this problem as a child than when you grow older -- people really don't like it when adults behave that way, I've found. Especially when it persists. I developed the problem sometime around 30. Bosses tend to be annoyed when employees dismiss their authority as nothing but some sort of sham. — Bitter Crank

I had the bad fortune to develop it at about 17. The family split up and we went back to live in England and I hated everything and everyone that thought they knew what was best for me. Didn't take too long for me to get into enough trouble that I did not want to live there anymore. So I did what everyone told me was the last thing I should do and came to live in Central America. Best decision of my life. But I still have problems with authorities, especially those that don't know what I know but try to tell me how to do things.

I had an experience when I was about 10, while visiting one of the many English stately homes our family loved touring.

The guide asked everyone to gather around him and let the kids come to the front, it was a rather restricted area. All of the other kids pushed to the front but I had this feeling that it was not a good thing to do so I stayed at the back.
The guide explained that the place they had found the remains of one of the mistresses of the 17th century owner of the place, that had gone missing when his wife had found out, was exactly where these kids were standing. Shrieks and screams rang out while I laughed about it.

No idea what why I did not want to move but I can still remember saying to myself "Don't go"

Alright now, cut it out, there are many children present. — Jake

And most of them could probably teach you and me a thing or two. :yikes:

For example, a person could build an incredibly intelligent robot with AI that would pass any Turing Test, yet the person would not know what it is truly like to feel or think as that robot. The creator might know every mechanical piece in the robot and how it works, but that would not give the creator a personal level in terms of experiencing the same things that the robot experiences.

To summarize, God being a creator does not signify that He knows His creations on a personal level, that knowledge (or lack of) would fall under the question of His omniscience. — Abecedarian

Your explanation is reasonable with a robot and the creator, but the god of the bible is supposed to know the thoughts of everyone. That is the basis of his omniscience.

So to declare that god cannot know about lust is either just plain silly or an admittance of his lack of omniscience.

:up:

Darn, that's some pretty cheap beer. Now I'm thirsty. — Posty McPostface

Want me to pass you an ice cold CEZKA?

Still, though, on a hot semi-tropical day a big bottle of ice-cold Orion Beer is a beautiful thing. — tim wood

On a hot tropical day, which I see almost everyday, there is nothing more beautiful than finishing one ice cold can of what ever beer is available and knowing that there are still 5 just as cold in the fridge.

One of our local super markets has been bringing in Portuguese beers this last year or so. They are better than the local stuff and cost about 30% less. It costs about 50cents US a can.