If God had wanted man to fly…

If God had wanted man to fly…
Those among you who know me well know that I think if/then logic is illogical, at best, because the logic structure is flawed. Generally, whatever follows if is currently not true, and, therefore, cannot justify then until if is modified to what is currently true, but then, why ask the question?

The then in this set-up “logic,” of course, is: [then] he [God] would have given him wings. The intended story is that God gave no man wings; we chose to make them ourselves, and also, therefore, chose the consequence. No wings have yet been genetically produced, it’s all the result of tool-making; an ability science once told us was unique to man. 

Well, we know, now, that is not true, either, so, so much for “science,” which also once told us the Earth centered the universe. Y’all also know my thinking on that little gem.

Here’s the point. It isn’t IF God wanted man to fly, because he gave Adam and Eve, and therefore us, dominion, and that means he wanted us to decide if we wanted to fly, and would allow that, because by dominion he gave us free will, so it is our decision to think of, and act on making our wings, even of a tool variety.

I do wonder if the reason debate sites/servers are filled with degeneracy is because God wants debating to end.

@AdaptableRatman

If debate sites weren't filled with differences of opinion, then they would not be debate sites.

Rather, mono-ideological chat rooms.

Yes and that does seem like what Heaven ultimately is akin to. So I am wondering if God has been trying to show me and others that on a fundamental level trying to regularly debate and argue is a hobby for the demonic only.

So, they stood and looked in all directions are were surrounded by the Universe.

And then they tied their stone axes to pieces of wood.

And then they looked at each other and their achievements, and decided that GOD must be a man.

Rudimentary science was rudimentary.

And you're more likely to die in a car crash than in a plane crash.

So if GOD had wanted you to drive, he would have fitted you with an engine and wheels, rather than legs.

But that said, you're more likely to die from falling over than in a plane crash.

Though most likely to die from your own systems failure.

You're born to die, somehow.

@AdaptableRatman

Well, no good asking me.

For me, DebateArt is brain exercise and GOD is a variable creation and existence hypothesis.

Though if there is a MANGOD creator, I doubt that it's particularly interested in what we get up to.

Judgement day awaits us all.

@AdaptableRatman

You never know.

I quit debating long time ago. If you want to convince people into something, you dont do it by debating. Even Socrates method is flawed. It is much easier to convince people by actions, personal example, support, rewards, or leading them to conclusion instead of giving them conclusion. I think maybe only 1 in 100 people change their mind by debating.

   Well stated.

Well stated,

Well stated.

That position implies at least two concepts with which I thoroughly disagree:

1. That God is omnipotent and uses it fully in everything he does.

2. That God is the total cause [i.e., there is no other cause] of everything that happens, which is one result of #1.

Re: #1: I accept that God is omnipotent when he needs to be, which is related to the omnipotence paradox, aka the paradox of the stone, as proposed by Averroes and Thomas Aquinas with the question "can God create a stone he cannot lift. In the face of that paradox, I suggest the chapter 17 of Matthew, which discusses Christ's transfiguration before Peter, James and John on a high mountain, but the extension of the story is the discussion of the power of faith, that the quantity of faith of the size of a mustard seed [less than 2mm] is sufficient to "...say unto this mountain, REmove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove..." [see Matthew 17: 1 - 20] So, the answer to the paradox is that no such stone can be created. That is not a limitation on God, but merely a demonstration  of the response to concept #1. I just do not think it is necessary for God to use his womniotence all the time, and may heave never used it: all thing of necessity to be done are within his strength to do so, but that strength is not necessary to do all things.

Re #2: i accept that God caused some things; perhaps even most things, but not all things. our Consequences of our thoughts and actions are on us, individually, and collectively. The creation story tells us that God gave dominion of Earth to Adam & Eve and their descendants, and that, therefore, they were given free will to do as they would, whether their thoughts and actioned are and were obedient to God, or not. [See Genesis 1: 28-31, Genesis 2: 16-17]

Am I, therefore, limiting God, as is the typical accusation? No, I am accepting what God, himself, has told us. It is not limitation, but godly restraint, because I suppose a malevolent god [and I perceive that phrase to be oxymoronic, for I do not accept that Satan, or Lucifer, or by whatever name is applied to him, is a god, but merely a petulant child, like we can be if as obtuse as he is] would impose his omnipotence always. Therefore, if debating is to end, that consequence is on us, not God.

That is a brilliantly structured question with an equally brilliant opening argument. 

For the argument: I guess I would be called a polytheist, and I do think all gods are essentially humanoid, though there may be wide variation in the form, such as the distinction between species presented in James Cameron's "Avatatar" [2009] of human [H. sapiens] of Earth, and the human [Na'vi] indigenous to Pandora. Though very different in form, culture and language, we do share some details of existence, eking for the possibility and eventual realization of cooperation to learn from one another.

For the question: I disagree that debate is only adversarial, and, therefore, demonic. We have had a number of debates on DA that have had Resolutions of cooperative tone, both sides good ideas, but one may be superior in a given situation, but anothersuperior in consequence, but either were acceptable conditions, even on such simple concepts as which pizza toppings are better in some sense, or which book is a better story, or which schools, public or private, are better educators when either are performed with lofty objectives and accomplishments.

Yes, I do not disagree with your commentary overall. And, yes, we ultimately die. As Jim Morrison [the Doors] said, "No one here gets out alive." Except, he is speaking merely of mortality, anti have a sense that was his thinking, too, not just mine, and others. But the distinction that will be of everlasting importance is how we lived, and that death is not a barrier, or an ultimates extinction, but merely an open door. You have likely seen my suggested theory of doors; that, when closed, they are a wall, and when open, they are access to another space, whether that is a room, or from inside to outside, or from mortality to immortality. Death is not a wall, but an open access.

I don't think our ''MANGOD' of your vernacular would bother to create us in his image if he were disinterested in the result of his creation. On the contrary, he is profoundly interested in, and encouraging our eternal progression on the same road he is on, ahead of us, also progressing. He is not finished, himself, and never will be. That is, as well, our destiny. Curiosity does not end.

Yes, but I perceive that event to not being a surprise result. I think we enter that hall of justice already knowing the result, because it is a review of our life, and I suspect it is gong to be a moment of complete and immediate recall of every though and action to which we have been party, and, coincidentally, also know the law to which we are held. No, no surprises, just stark recognition of the result. After all, the Judge is omniscient, and, on that moment, so are we with regard to ourselves.

Never is for Satan, but not for us. We have eternal potential; the ultimate victor [no pun intended] over "never."

Except every single debate website/server is rotten to the core.

Eventually one wonders if these naturally attract the demonic.

Which popular site isnt rotten?

Mar-a-Lago?

Corruption is the nature of the human condition, but it is not impossible to overwhelm with sufficient attention to it to keep the debate free oof the anger we tend to absorb and reflect, me along with everyone else. We can all do better if the commitment is there to try.

With these mods? Yeah I think it is.

Past 6 mod actions 5 were due to my reports alone afaik.

If I wasnt around, this site would be worse, I already saw that while away.