> arms wrote:

> > [RPA] Arocalex wrote:

> > arms wrote:

> avatar is really worth seeing (especialy in 3D), however it lacks a real story

just like ur mom

wow. intelligent.

wow, requiring jokes to be intelligent to be funny is so arrogant

"
There is no reason a perfect entity would feel the need to create, seeing at is it already complete. A god that is perfect would therefore do nothing apart from simply existing."

an all powerful being would not have to put effort for anything to be accomplished; and the creation could be a side effect of him simply existing... whatever reason we exist, just because you cannot think of one where he wouldnt be perfect isnt logical proof that it doesnt exist...

"Lets say God did create everything, if so and Humans were the prime creation, seeing as we were created and his image and were given a choice. In the image of a perfect god, nothing can be imperfect, so why did the perfect human betray Gods trust and will, and disobey him ? A perfect god could not logically create anything imperfect without itself being imperfect."

first we have to define "perfect" what one person considers perfect another wouldnt. the basic concept of what god is, is that he is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. this is what many religions refer to when they call God perfect, an all powerful, all knowing, and all good being does not have to create beings that are all powerful, all knowing, and all good in order for him to be all powerful, all knowing, and all good.

"If God, the perfect being, has free will, yet he creates imperfect humans in his own image, he logically cannot be perfect."

this has the same problem as my last quote, suffering from an unspecified definition of perfection... if using the definition of perfection many religions use, then your statement is not correct...  an all powerful, all knowing, and all good being does not have to create beings that are all powerful, all knowing, and all good in order for him to be all powerful, all knowing, and all good.

"A perfect creating god could not create a self-destructive biosphere, as there would be no point to his creation"

i disagree, if a perfect being had a point to his creation, if he needed something from them, then he could not be perfect. him seeking nothing from his creation is a requirement of him being perfect...

"First of all, everything in the universe has a timeframe. Where is God on this timeframe and who put him there. If He always has been, why did he start creating when he did ? Was he bored ? Lonely ? If he has always been, why have not we, and our planet always been ? What changed to make him need us meat-puppets ?

This is of course far off of God's rules of existance. To need, to get bored, to get lonely, he'd need not to be perfect.
And if he is eternally not-perfect, he is eternally not God."

God in the timeframe is he always existed.. he is the uncaused cause...  as i stated for your first point: an all powerful being would not have to put effort for anything to be accomplished; and the creation could be a side effect of him simply existing... whatever reason we exist, just because you cannot think of one where he wouldnt be perfect isnt logical proof that it doesnt exist...

"If 1. he is not worthy of worship"

why must a God want to prove to you his existence inorder for him to be worthy of worship, if anything the opposite is true... a God isnt much of a God if he needs to be worshiped...

"Can an all-good God create so much evil ?"

is not good and evil adjectives? do adjectives not compare? so humans compare events in their lives, and the things they think are best, they call good, and the things they think worst, they call evil. if the worst thing in life was a blow job, humans would still think theres so much evil in the world, you are calling human's perspective perfect...

"A god that knows the future, is powerless to change it. Therefore he either is not all-powerful or he is not all-knowing."

there is no contradiction. there are infinite possible futures because there are infinite possible actions God can do, and God can know these infinite futures and be able to do the infinite possibilities...

silly Damon, there are no logical flaws in the existence of God, you're a moron for thinking that religious people ahvent thought of all those things you have brought up...  most of this is pretty basic stuff..

one more thing, you use this "in his image" thing alot, which is simply referencing Man's free will. Man has free will like God does. that is the only similarity between God and Man "in his image" references..

no, it works

my answer was not how to tell the diference between sound and faulty logic in general, its how i can be quite comfortable that there isnt a chain of logic that dismisses religion...

i think logically you cant deduce whether there is or isnt a God.  If some no name tries to do so, there is over a 99% chance they are wrong. are there intelligent people that dont believe in a God? yes. its similar to food. some people prefer vanilla ice cream and some like chocolate; you cant logically conclude one is better then the other. sure someone raised by a parent that prefers one has a tendency to like that one over the other, but that doesnt make it less valid and there are plenty of people raised in a household of vanilla lovers that prefer chocolate..

how do i know what is faulty logic?

i dug up answer for you. he asked me what is the reason people are atheist, i responded:

"there isnt a single reason...  the quote you gave was simply pointing out that the difference between an atheists and  christians is not "intelligence, IQ, education, or ability to think for yourself"

i dont support generalizations and im not gonna make a generalization about what atheists are...

"The point is that intelligent people use logic to dismiss the existence of God"

except i showed that intelligent people that use logic dont dismiss the existence of God...

"
Avogadro, and I'm not trying to offend you, but it seems to me that you just find something, not quite on point and try to shift the discussion in a different way as to not have to answer a difficult question"

what difficult question have i tried to avoid? im not aware of any, theres a couple stupid posts by damon or calus that are based off of generalizations or childish misinterpretations that i didnt deem worth responding to and anyone whose opinion i would value on the matter would deem the same, is that what you are referring to? its pretty pointless telling a arrogant atheist that consider religious people morons that his ideas about what religion is, is wrong.

> [Pw9]Shadow wrote:

> I compare Avatar with Star Wars: A New Hope.
New technology, different approach in movie making.

But lets face it (and I am a huge SW fan) story of A New Hope and the actors themself are below par.
Yet Star Wars is seen as one of the most influential movies in the past decades.

A new Hope had a way, way better story... there was no way to see things coming like the utter destruction of a planet, a moon sized battle station, the empire putting a homing beacon in the ship, Han coming back at the very end to save Luke's ass.

the script and charecter development were way way better too. you say alot of different sides to multiple characters, that weren't nearly as easy to predict as with the people in Avatar...

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> >>Umm, no. They are very strong, and consensus agrees with me. You just have expectations higher than everyone else for just about everything.<<

So avogadro is like Professor X, hes got mutant mental powers of observation, you can be strong-minded like Magneto but if you go up against Avogadro he will pwn you because he is stronger than strong

nah, im more like Apocalypse

the problem with Avatar:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/12/11/review-camerons-avatar-is-a-big-dull-america-hating-pc-revenge-fantasy/

"a sanctimonious thud of a movie so infested with one-dimensional characters and PC clich

"I'm not sure what to say about the script. Maybe that's the reason for the poor acting."

yeah, that was probably part of it. so many characters only had one dimension to them, cant entirely blame the actors for not being able to make them believable..

"I'm confused as to what you don't consider a plausible theory Avogadro."

i didnt say it wasnt a plausible theory... i didnt see a valid point in it. Everyone knows theres a possibility that religion is wrong. his post simply restated that. no valid point to address.