Metacrock wrote:Do you not know what literary devices are? I said thy idea that they would tell the flood story just to answer why there are rainbows is ridiculous. What makes a rainbow works is irrelevant. The real message is God's salvation is as dependable as rainbow after rain. God controls nature God is in charge that sort o hing thiat is the point.
Of course the entire flood story was not invented to explain rainbows, nevertheless it clear does include that explanation. In fact there are several of these "just so" stories in Genesis:
Why do snakes crawl on their bellies?
Why do they attack people?
Why are there different languages?
Why do we cover our sexual organs?
Why is life hard?
How was the world created?
Why is it okay to enslave the Canaanites?
Sure, no one believes that that is why nowadays, and the narratives were not invented purely to answer these questions, but the narratives were contrived to include the answers, and at one time they were accepted as fact.
Dude how can it be God of the mother fucking gaps when it's not meant to to explain mother fucking nature???, screw your head on man!!!!
What? What is it explaining then?
too bad you don't know what God of the gaps means, where did I say science doesn't know what rainbows are?
"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy.
At one time religion explained everything. It has lost that privileged position, beaten by science. Now, all it can hope to explain is what science, for the time being anyway, cannot explain. A "God of the gaps" argument is one that says science cannot explain something, so that means it must have been God.
too bad you didn't pay any attention to my answers on the other thread,. I argued that God has reasons for not eliminating things and those are important reasons, God is the judge he;'s not your busboy, he runs the world not you.
I did not pay attention because you were spouting this sort of vacuous nonsense. Claiming there is a reason and that it is an important reason is worth exactly nothing if you cannot tell us what that reason is. You have faith that there is a reason, but that counts as nothing to someone without that faith.
The comment about God running the world is sadly typical of Christians with no answer. The issue is not whether I could run the world better, it is whether this is the world that we would expect if God existed. The argument is:
If an all-powerful, all-loving god existed, there would be no polio
There is polio
Therefore an all-powerful, all-loving god does not exist
Moreover, where do you gt the idea that virtue is a cause? Morality is not a cause of behavior, It's a code of conduct we choose to follow.
Who said it is?
all moral axioms that God imposes as moral law are grounded in god's love. They all means to the end of the good of the other God's creation and imn our dealings with others our other.
This is equally true whether God exists or not. If God was a delusion, and you merely imagined God imposed his moral laws because they are grounded in his love, you would end up with the same moral laws!