Killer Storms is GODs Wrath!

When someone makes a claim (like that there is a terrorist in his closet) the logical thing to do is to test the claim. It is illogical to reject it out of hand.

If you think that the logical thing to think is that you should check my closet for a terrorist...there really is no limit to what nonsense you will give credence to.

By the way I am god, so I am right...you can't prove that I am not so its logical for you to think that yes maybe I am :)
 
Werbung:
If you think that the logical thing to think is that you should check my closet for a terrorist...there really is no limit to what nonsense you will give credence to.

By the way I am god, so I am right...you can't prove that I am not so its logical for you to think that yes maybe I am :)

It all comes down to faith, fellowship, and a strong belief that there is an entitity greater than you or me.......that we are not the "supreme beings" of the universe, and that "things" happen to us that cannot be explained as the work of mortal men or cannot be dismissed as the work of somebody greater than us.

Life is full of surprises. Not everything is predictable or controllable by man, despite what the big-government liberals believe.

You believe what you want, and everybody else will believe what they want.
 
I can not prove to the satisfaction of my five year old grandson that there are no leprechauns in the closet under the stairs in his house.

I know that there are no leprechauns there. No rational person over the age of six or so would think that there are. I am willing to say that it is beyond question that there are no leprechauns in that closet, but can't prove it to that five year old.

Nor can I prove that god doesn't send tornadoes to punish people, but any rational person over the age of six can see that tornadoes are a force of nature, and not a result of the wrath of god.

What you are saying is still illogical. It is in fact an appeal to authority in which you state that an authoritative person, i.e. a rational person over the age of six, would never believe that tornadoes are an act of God. It is fallacious both because it is an appeal to authority and because it is just not true. After all, many court cases, legislation, legal dictionaries, and virtually all insurance contracts contain cluases about "acts of God" in which it is understood that tornadoes are an act of God.

In short you can't prove it but you are intent on saying it anyway.
 
If you think that the logical thing to think is that you should check my closet for a terrorist...there really is no limit to what nonsense you will give credence to.

By the way I am god, so I am right...you can't prove that I am not so its logical for you to think that yes maybe I am :)

Checking your closet would be just one way to test your statement that there are terrorists in your closet. But that sounds like a lot of work. I could just read what you wrote and determine that you did not genuinely make the claim that there were terrorists in your closet. In the case of the OP I could determine that Steveox was also in no position to speak for the motives of God. In the case of your claim to be God I could compare your actions and statements against my own faith based understanding of God and determine that they are contradictory. Or I could evaluate your claim to be God logically. In your claim you infer that God is always right ("I am God, so I am right"). And since I have seen you be as wrong as any of us I would know that you are not God.

Testing the claims people make is often not difficult at all and there is no need to make statement that are illogical to do it.
 
What you are saying is still illogical. It is in fact an appeal to authority in which you state that an authoritative person, i.e. a rational person over the age of six, would never believe that tornadoes are an act of God. It is fallacious both because it is an appeal to authority and because it is just not true. After all, many court cases, legislation, legal dictionaries, and virtually all insurance contracts contain cluases about "acts of God" in which it is understood that tornadoes are an act of God.

In short you can't prove it but you are intent on saying it anyway.

That only makes sense if any rational person over the age of six is an authority.

Since no one can prove a negative, i.e., there are no leprechauns in the closet, or god does not punish people with weather, then it is up to the person claiming the opposite to show some evidence.

There is no evidence that god punishes people with weather.
 
That only makes sense if any rational person over the age of six is an authority.



When you made the claim that any rational person over the age of six would know there were no terrorists in your closet it was clear, was it not, that you were saying it wouild be because they were experienced good thinkers, i.e. an authority? Obviously you were not saying that all rational persons over the age of six were in a position of power.

According to the definition ot authority:

au·thor·i·ty (-thôr-t, -thr-, ô-thôr-, ô-thr-)
n. pl. au·thor·i·ties
1.
a. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
b. One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority.
2. Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests.
3. A public agency or corporation with administrative powers in a specified field: a city transit authority.
4.
a. An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.
b. A quotation or citation from such a source: biblical authorities for a moral argument.
5. Justification; grounds: On what authority do you make such a claim?
6. A conclusive statement or decision that may be taken as a guide or precedent.
7. Power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience: political observers who acquire authority with age.
8. Confidence derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance:

You were using definition 4a and not definition 1a.


Regadless of what the definition of authority is you were trying to say you were right because certain people would agree with you. That is not why arguments are right or wrong. If you want to show that I should accept that it is silly to claim that there is a terrorist in your closet you should use actual logical arguments. I would add that terrorists exist and so do closets and people get into closets all the time. For leprachuans it is less feasable, perhaps impossible, but I would be a fool to claim that, unless I were to post a definition of leprechuan that defined them as imaginary or mythical.



Since no one can prove a negative, i.e., there are no leprechauns in the closet, or god does not punish people with weather, then it is up to the person claiming the opposite to show some evidence.

There is no evidence that god punishes people with weather.

Why do I need evidence that God punishes with weather. My point is not that God does punish with weather but that you cannot logically say He does not punish people with weather. (not because you would be required to prove a negative but because you would be making an argument without knowing enough the facts)

And yes one can prove a negative. I could say there are no examples of double Z's in this post. Then all we would have to do is look at every word and exhaust all the places where a double z could be. If on the other hand one is trying to say that there is no God in the universe then one cannot examine the whole universe and one cannot disprove that there is a God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

The difficulty is not in proving a negative but in not making the error of arguing from ignorance.


So is there evidence that God punishes people with weather? Remember in that evidence does not need to be conclusive...it only needs to support a postition. Then yes there is evidence that God punishes people with weather.

Examples of evidence:

The bible says that God sometimes punishes people.
The bible says that God sometimes creates weather.
The bible likens his punishment to tornadoes, whirlwinds, in multimple examples.
We have seen that people often experience negative effects of weather and it just might be that those negative effects are punishment.
Sometimes we have seen people we would expect to be spared spared and sometimes we have seen people we would not expet to be spared destroyed by tornadoes.
The law defines tornadoes as an act of God.

Are those examples, proof? No. Are they evidence? Yes. Is it feasable that people who have experienced negative effects of weather were being punished? Yes. Is that the point I am trying to make? No. I am not saying that I know of examples of God punishing people with tornadoes only that it is feasable.
 
When you made the claim that any rational person over the age of six would know there were no terrorists in your closet it was clear, was it not, that you were saying it wouild be because they were experienced good thinkers, i.e. an authority? Obviously you were not saying that all rational persons over the age of six were in a position of power.

According to the definition ot authority:

au·thor·i·ty (-thôr-t, -thr-, ô-thôr-, ô-thr-)
n. pl. au·thor·i·ties
1.
a. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
b. One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority.
2. Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests.
3. A public agency or corporation with administrative powers in a specified field: a city transit authority.
4.
a. An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.
b. A quotation or citation from such a source: biblical authorities for a moral argument.
5. Justification; grounds: On what authority do you make such a claim?
6. A conclusive statement or decision that may be taken as a guide or precedent.
7. Power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience: political observers who acquire authority with age.
8. Confidence derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance:

You were using definition 4a and not definition 1a.


Regadless of what the definition of authority is you were trying to say you were right because certain people would agree with you. That is not why arguments are right or wrong. If you want to show that I should accept that it is silly to claim that there is a terrorist in your closet you should use actual logical arguments. I would add that terrorists exist and so do closets and people get into closets all the time. For leprachuans it is less feasable, perhaps impossible, but I would be a fool to claim that, unless I were to post a definition of leprechuan that defined them as imaginary or mythical.





Why do I need evidence that God punishes with weather. My point is not that God does punish with weather but that you cannot logically say He does not punish people with weather. (not because you would be required to prove a negative but because you would be making an argument without knowing enough the facts)

And yes one can prove a negative. I could say there are no examples of double Z's in this post. Then all we would have to do is look at every word and exhaust all the places where a double z could be. If on the other hand one is trying to say that there is no God in the universe then one cannot examine the whole universe and one cannot disprove that there is a God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

The difficulty is not in proving a negative but in not making the error of arguing from ignorance.


So is there evidence that God punishes people with weather? Remember in that evidence does not need to be conclusive...it only needs to support a postition. Then yes there is evidence that God punishes people with weather.

Examples of evidence:

The bible says that God sometimes punishes people.
The bible says that God sometimes creates weather.
The bible likens his punishment to tornadoes, whirlwinds, in multimple examples.
We have seen that people often experience negative effects of weather and it just might be that those negative effects are punishment.
Sometimes we have seen people we would expect to be spared spared and sometimes we have seen people we would not expet to be spared destroyed by tornadoes.
The law defines tornadoes as an act of God.

Are those examples, proof? No. Are they evidence? Yes. Is it feasable that people who have experienced negative effects of weather were being punished? Yes. Is that the point I am trying to make? No. I am not saying that I know of examples of God punishing people with tornadoes only that it is feasable.

OK, you just made an excellent argument for a totally absurd position, which says a lot for your ability to debate a point.

So, let's say that your position is correct, and that the tornadoes in Alabama were due to the wrath of god. What do you think she was mad about?
 
OK, you just made an excellent argument for a totally absurd position, which says a lot for your ability to debate a point.

So, let's say that your position is correct, and that the tornadoes in Alabama were due to the wrath of god. What do you think she was mad about?

its clear its the US lack of Ninjas...she hates that.
 
OK, you just made an excellent argument for a totally absurd position, which says a lot for your ability to debate a point.

So, let's say that your position is correct, and that the tornadoes in Alabama were due to the wrath of god. What do you think she was mad about?

I did not make the argument FOR the idea that God used or caused the tornadoes as punishment. I made the argument against the idea that God did not use the tornadoes as punishment. Without divine revelation none of us knows.

You may think it is cute to call God a she but in the context of talking to a person with the ideas about God that you can assume I have - it is rude. I belive that God's attributes contain both the masculine and the feminine but for whatever reason (probably to reinforce the idea of God as a loving father) in grammar the male pronoun was chosen/inspired.
 
I did not make the argument FOR the idea that God used or caused the tornadoes as punishment. I made the argument against the idea that God did not use the tornadoes as punishment. Without divine revelation none of us knows.

Semantics. Arguing against the idea that god did not do something is no different from arguing for the idea that she did.

You may think it is cute to call God a she but in the context of talking to a person with the ideas about God that you can assume I have - it is rude. I belive that God's attributes contain both the masculine and the feminine but for whatever reason (probably to reinforce the idea of God as a loving father) in grammar the male pronoun was chosen/inspired.

If god's attributes contain both masculine and feminine, then either pronoun should suffice. However, when we're talking about the creator of life, the feminine is more appropriate.
 
Semantics. Arguing against the idea that god did not do something is no different from arguing for the idea that she did.



If god's attributes contain both masculine and feminine, then either pronoun should suffice. However, when we're talking about the creator of life, the feminine is more appropriate.

actually the idea that A singular God would have any sex or gender at all seems foolish...I mean why? So its not like there is some other God to Mate with, thus the idea of Gender seems pointless. So unless we are to believe in a multi god idea, he she it should make no difference. I one was to take the literal idea that man was made in Gods image..would that mean God has a penis for some reason? Or in the idea God man man..as in mankind...in its image...and since man and woman are both in its image...its clearly not one or the other.

there is of course the idea that God is written as a man...basically do to the fact that when written woman where valued far less and wrote basically none of the books...
 
actually the idea that A singular God would have any sex or gender at all seems foolish...I mean why? So its not like there is some other God to Mate with, thus the idea of Gender seems pointless. So unless we are to believe in a multi god idea, he she it should make no difference. I one was to take the literal idea that man was made in Gods image..would that mean God has a penis for some reason? Or in the idea God man man..as in mankind...in its image...and since man and woman are both in its image...its clearly not one or the other.

there is of course the idea that God is written as a man...basically do to the fact that when written woman where valued far less and wrote basically none of the books...

That's my guess about why god is seen as masculine.
Why do we have to believe that god is singular? Sounds lonesome to me.
 
That's my guess about why god is seen as masculine.
Why do we have to believe that god is singular? Sounds lonesome to me.

well could just be a bad sport and does not want anyone else to have all of its powers...plus maybe thats just how god was made, I mean its not like God could just one day appear and grow from there over time into some kind of a god...that would require a god to create god...

Plus seems God can't even get a handle on his last big creation, Satan, who clearly must be at least close to as powerful or else that whole battle of good and evil would be over in a snap.
 
That's my guess about why god is seen as masculine.
Why do we have to believe that god is singular? Sounds lonesome to me.

According to the Bible, Lucifer was jealous of God, wanted to overthrow him. Was outcast from heaven after power struggle. That sounds like a "race" of gods (Not to mention God's "son".) to me, with similar power. Otherwise, how could Lucifer ever hope to prevail in a power struggle.

It is all "angles dancing on the head of a pin", anyway.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top