Yap, I'd actually like to stay for a couple of months in many countries in the world. That's much better than boring tourist-like traveling.
![](https://i.imgur.com/IUyLPtx.png)
Best posts made by pe7erpark3r
-
RE: Do you ever think about going somewhere where nobody knows you and starting a new life?
-
RE: The big poll: City ...or countryside?
Don't like cities, but here is an important bit of information about them:
Cities are good for the environment. This is not a joke.
- People who live in cities use measurabley less natural resources than people who live in the countryside. Just think about costs for heating: It takes more energy per person to warm a 1-family home, than to warm a block. Why? Because your neighbours heat also warms up your flat a bit.
- people in cities care a lot more about the environment
- allmost all pro-environment movements are created by people from big cities
- allmost all environmentally friendly technology comes from big cities
- allmost all money spent on the care of the environment comes from big cities
- Cities are thus the primary driver for countries becoming environmentally friendly, once they have reached a certain wealth. We can see this in china right now (chinese cities have started a lot of pro-environment initiatives in the last decade)
All of the above is statistically collected data (e.g. scientific fact)
-
RE: What are your thoughts on true love?
@OliveOlivia said in What are your thoughts on true love?:
@petrapark3r said in What are your thoughts on true love?:
(is that more like feeling maybe?)
I imagine its when everything finally aligns. Your heart, mind, and soul all know
Yes, if you say it this way, it makes perfect sense!
-
RE: Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational
@Urfi said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@petrapark3r As far as I know Atheists are more intelligent and smart than theists. I'm not saying this without any reliable source. I have included those sources for you. A new paper published in frontiers in psychology which describes belief in god is associated with lower scores on IQ test
Source 1
Source2
If atheism was irrational, their followers should have lower IQ than that of theistsI too always assumed that in this day and age there would be more intelligent people on the side of the atheists than of the theists. Thank you for giving me some data :smile: . However in all the millenia before us, this was not the case, and there is no reason to assume, that it must be in the future. Also, most people have not thought this one here through properly, most people haven't really understood it. Heck most people haven't even heard of it. (It is the cosmological way to God according to Thomas of Aquinus). I wonder if those numbers would still be the same if everyone had understood these things... But yeah, it is no proof.
There are so many theories other than bigbang one. Nobody exactly knows how universe came into existence.
And as you should have seen, I was not assuming that they know. But let me add, that there is a consensus about the big bang. There is almost no scientist who doesn't agree with this theory. The question they are not sure about is what was before (and what before even means, since time seems to have begun with the big bang).
Lets assume god created the universe according to bible's genesis, God needed 6 days to create the universe but he did rest on 7th day though. What kind of almighty creator needs rest ? One more thing, a day is the time needed for Earth to complete one rotation on its axis. So how days passed if Earth and Sun were not created yet? How did he measured this time?
Why would you even assume, that I'd take the bible literally? That indeed would be a lack of intelligence (sorry to everyone who does) for the following reason: Genesis actually contains two accounts of how the earth was created (see my post for further info).
If everything must have a cause, then God
must have a cause.Reason has to conclude that there must be one thing that has no cause...
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God
...which is either God or the world.
, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said,
"Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that.Yes it is. Because what can be its own cause? What in the world could be its own reason? Can the world really be its own reason? Wouldn't this make the world godly?
Even if you would disagree with what those questions imply, this is still a bit more than just an elephant on a turtoise.
There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause;
There is absolutely any reason to assume that there should be nothing and no reason at all to assume that the world could have come into being without a cause or without even the possibility of coming into being. Things don't just happen. That idea is more than just irrational...
nor, on the other
hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning
is really due to the poverty of our imagination.You are right, you can assume that the world is eternal. And yes, it is due to our inability to understand the nature of this one first reason. It will forever remain non-understandable to us, for this is how reason works. And this is the definition of the word irrational: it makes no sense to our reason (latin: ratio).
Which is exactly the point of the argument I am making.
And it is not a question of who is more intelligent. Every atheist will agree that this conundrum is indeed irrational, once she understands what I am talking about. It's just like with mathematics: you have to agree that 1+2 = 2. Before you understood it, you might not have agreed, but once you understand it, you have no choice.
And I mean what should they do about it? They have two irrational choices, believe in God or an eternal irrational world. Of course they'd chose what their peers chose: atheism...
This can be answered with cause-effect reasoning. A cause-effect relationship is a relationship in which one event (the cause) makes another event happen (the effect). One cause can have several effects. Assuming again god created this universe, universe is the product of him. Every product like a house, is the work of an agent therefore the world which is a product, must have an agent or creator who is called god. But we know this inference is inconclusive, because the one of the premise 'the world is a product' is doubtful. How is it proved that the world is a product? It can't be said that the world is a product because it has parts. Wherever we perceive anything being produced, the producer or the agent is found to work on the material with his limbs.
We don't have to bring the idea of product into this. The world is a causal thing. Look out the window. Everything happens for a reason. Trees grow, because a seed once fell into the gorund and the sun gives its energy. The argument has nothing to do with wether the world is a product or not. Causality is enough, and causality is real.
God is said to be bodiless. How can he then work on matter to produce the world?
Yeah, God is also irrational. We cannot understand how he could work on matter. Just as we cannot understand a world that created itself or has no reason.
-
RE: Hi we can vc. f38 single mom. snapchat: Berba0224
@Barbara224 You're a really cute dog :heart_eyes: and you have quite the attractive owner too I must say.
On TWS you won't just potentially find a mate but also lots of other great people and maybe even friends for life. Just an advice.
In case you're wondering, I feel a little to young to be the right one for you, but I'm always interested in meeting new people...
-
RE: How do you relax?
@Lurker said in How do you relax?:
@lego-batman
If I am in dire need of relaxing I either hit the gym or go for a run. Exercise helps me keep my mind away from problems and overthinking and it usually helps. Tho I often get the "too tired to sleep" feeling :sweat_smile:
Going for a run sounds like a good idea indeed.
-
RE: What is it you really don't like in a partner?
@wet-teri said in What is it you really don't like in a partner?:
@petrapark3r
Familiarity breeds contempt. Or so the saying goes.
I would say that it's relatively true.yea, you never realize how annoying a person can be until you live with them under the same roof...
I don't sweat any of the little things possibly with the exception of not listening and pretending that you are.
Yeah, in the end we have to bear the little things like a sacrifice of love.
But the big things, yea, they can really hurt. About the listening: I believe to be a good listener, like you can get from me 100% attention, you'd love it. But there are also moments where my brain just flys off into neverland and i dont know how to control that. I guess I should warn othera about it...
Dishonesty is my number 1 on things that I don't like (and will not have) in a relationship.
I don't care how bad the news is I would much rather be told by my significant other rather than hear it through the grapevine.Agreed. Fully. Personally.
-
RE: Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational
@What-is-this said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@petrapark3r What you just tried to do is "prove" that atheism is irrational by using irrational claims yourself though..
Well no, I used rational claims.
Difference between science and religion is that science actually does something regarding to that question while religion stayed the same ever since, not moving at all in any direction.
I would rather use and follow logical arguments and be called atheist instead of believing in words and book that human wrote back in the days when the level of knowledge and evidence was at its lowest and rational ignorance was at the highest.I too very much prefer to follow logical arguments than simply believing words in a book – or a science journal for that matter. I mean even the most well known scientific journals tend to tell you these days that your sexual identity is completely unrelated to your biology. And that is just nonsense.
To me, it seems that you're questioning science as a whole and trying to prove that there is God. There are different types of scientists today, they have different hypothesis and they work hard to either conclude if they are true or false, on the other hand, what do religious people do? On every "who, what, when, where, why" they will say: "it was God and it shouldn't be questioned" and that's it. - complete ignorance and disrespect to science, the same science that made this world a better place with all the innovations and changes.
You know I'm glad that you have brought this up. The scientific method in its essence as experiment, deduction and its reliance on reason was developed in its beginning in catholic (and anglican) universities. This is no wonder since the catholic church has always always argumented, that faith must go along with reason, and that you can indeed reason about the world and reason about faith.
Science does neither prove nor disprove that there is a God. This question is simply outside of its domain. You on the other hand are contradicting rationality by conflating science with atheism. You don't know its boundaries and its focus on the natural world.
Science works with things that look irrational at first and through different actions it finds explanations and evidence for it, while religion is built on irrationality and follows it fully while neglecting every counterevidence that can be tested in space and time.
As I said before the teaching of the catholic church was always built on rationality. Of course science is a process, which means you'll need to get closer and closer to the truth, step by step, so you cannot expect people from 2000 years ago to have known what we know today. And of course many catholics failed to think rationally, as do many atheists (and of course religious people) today. Thinking rationally is quite the demanding task and not everybody is capable of it sadly. But the scientific process is entirely rational and that is why I love science!
If God exists, who created him? I guess another God.
It is funny, because that is kind of my argument, but turned around. If the world exists, who created it? The world itself? Is the world its own cause?
I respect religious people and their opinions, as long as they don't try to neglect science and use theories that science works with just to claim that scientists don't know anything and that they are irrational.
I did not claim that scientists are irrational, I claimed that atheism is irrational. Please stop conflating science with atheism, those are 2 different things.
Actually I do claim that many scientists are irrational. But the really good ones are in fact not, be they atheists or not... Einstein for example did believe in God. You might know one of his famous quotes:
"God doesn't throw dice"
(meaning there is no such thing as chance)
-
RE: Trading and earning money
@TalkWithStranger Do you guys think there is a way to stop this kind of ads from appearing on TWS. It's starting to become an epidemic...
-
RE: How do you relax?
@TheGoldenMole said in How do you relax?:
@lego-batman
Dancing, yoga, working out, painting, long drives, swimming, caring for animals, some people even relax by cleaning maybe that would work?That's a long list, is it your list or is it what people do? Maybe I should get myself a dog hmm... :thinking_face: :joy:
-
RE: What is it you really don't like in a partner?
@Anastasia-Smith said in What is it you really don't like in a partner?:
@petrapark3r one thing I don't like about my S.O is that he often tends to keep up the hard conversations saved up for later...I really hate that about him. It's okay to keep putting off hard conversations in order to keep the peace and harmony in the relationship however doing so will always brings up bigger problems for us later and we end up fighting...which could've been easily avoided by talking things out. So yeah I really hate the I'll solve this out later attitude
Yeah, that attitude can be a real problem for every relationship. And it makes things much much worse...
-
RE: Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational
@Urfi said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Many of theists assume atheists have never read bible or any philosopher's argument. But they are wrong 100%. Unlike theism, atheism is never based on instincts. They have risen above it. Coming to your question, I can even write an essay on St. Thomas Aquinus. I studied western and Indian philosophy 3 years ago. I'm recalling it :). Summa Theologica was work of Aquinus. He elaborated five proofs for the existence of God in his work. Also, writing St. before his name would be more respectful
Indeed it would have been, thank you for reminding me :smile:
Actually most atheists at least in the west have no philosophical education, they are normal people just like those who go to church often don't really understand theology. But I assume it is different in india (assuming that is where you are from).
I wonder if those numbers would still be the same if everyone had understood these things... But yeah, it is no proof.
It does not make any sense because you have just a mindset.I'm just wondering if it would be different, that's all. I mean education does influence opinion :shrug:
Lets assume god created the universe according to bible's genesis, God needed 6 days to create the universe but he did rest on 7th day though. What kind of almighty creator needs rest ? One more thing, a day is the time needed for Earth to complete one rotation on its axis. So how days passed if Earth and Sun were not created yet? How did he measured this time?
Why would you even assume, that I'd take the bible literally? That indeed would be a lack of intelligence (sorry to everyone who does)
Here you are being hypocrite. Why should we assume universe without god's existence ? An assumption is called supposition or Guess. An intelligent man would always write both guesses.
- Assuming God didn't create the universe - You assumed this one
- Assuming God created the universe - I assumed this one.
I don't understand why you mention this here. I was saying that taking the bible literally in this sense (assuming God created the world in 7 earth days) would be a lack of intelligence, or maybe a lazyness of thinking, on my part, since taking it literally in this sense is already contradictory because of the existence of two contradicting generation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
for the following reason: Genesis actually contains two accounts of how the earth was created (see my post for further info).
I saw your post about genesis but it couldn't answer my questions. He completed his work in 7 days and did rest for one day. What kind of rest did the almighty creator want ? Your genesis was unable to elaborate anything about planets. How did he count 7 days without knowing anything about day and night ?
What I meant by not reading Genesis literally is that I don't take the 7 days to be literal days of any kind. I take these as symbolic. For example the fact, that the first thing that God creates is light. This doesn't make any sense from a scientific viewpoint, and the people who lived back then had the same IQ level as us (if we believe the scientific consensus on human development). It must have been obvious even to them, that the sun is in fact the origin of light. Actually there are enough ancient texts that show that people did in fact understand this. So why in the world would God create light before the sun or the stars?
The answer is, that this is the light of reason, of understanding, of truth. If you want to understand where I'm coming from I recommend Dr. Jordan Peterson's lecturs on the psychological significance of the bible.
This in turn means, that also the other days are to be understand symbolically. It shows how God ordered everything, not just the things he created but also the time. All of Genesis speaks about God's relation to His creation and specifically His relation to us and our relation to Him and our relation to creation. God orders our life according to the order of days. This is what it is about.
The sabbath is the holy day, it is the day of service to the Lord. It is on this day, that we pray most, and that we rest. And God does enjoy this love we bring Him on the seventh day. And if you enjoy something you can really relax.
So as you can see, all of Genesis is really about the relationship between God and us. Not about how the earth was created in a literal sense.
If everything must have a cause, then God
must have a cause.Reason has to conclude that there must be one thing that has no cause...
This chain will never end up because one thing too should have a cause
This is the central question. Every element in the chain has the one element before it as cause, as reason for being there. But what reason does the whole chain have? There is no rational answer to this question. This is the point of the whole argument.
If God is not the root cause of the chain, then the chain is endless. But saying that the chain is endless does not absolve it from needing a cause to exist in the first place. Human reason demands this, we cannot think any other way. So if the chain was indeed endless (which is the only alternative to God being the root cause) then it would not make sense to reason, it would be irrational.
What in the world could be its own reason?
Can the world really be its own reason?Surely it cannot be the reason of itself.
Wouldn't this make the world godly?
If he was the root cause of all things, we couldn't perceive daily that many objects like houses, pots etc ain't produced by God.
By what argument do you assume, that if God was the root cause, there could not be any houses?
We observe that many human beings like masons and even lower animals like ants and bees act together harmoniously to build objects like palaces, ant-hills and hives. This doesn't make world godly
Ants are not their own reason, they are there because of evolution (assuming evolution theory is correct). The harmony has developed. But everything in nature has a reason that is before it. Everything is caused. If the world however is not caused it must be its own reason. This is what could give it a godly nature.
Even if you would disagree with what those questions imply, this is still a bit more than just an elephant on a turtoise.
Again, this chain will never end up.
The point is that God is his own reason and his own cause and since this is not understandable to our mind, He is irrational.
However to say this about the world (being its own reason and being its own cause), which is the only alternative, sounds quite strange. And it means the world would be non-understandable, irrational.
There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause;
There is absolutely any reason to assume that there should be nothing and no reason at all to assume that the world could have come into being without a cause or without even the possibility of coming into being. Things don't just happen. That idea is more than just irrational...
nor, on the other
hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning
is really due to the poverty of our imagination.You are right, you can assume that the world is eternal. And yes, it is due to our inability to understand the nature of this one first reason. It will forever remain non-understandable to us, for this is how reason works. And this is the definition of the word irrational: it makes no sense to our reason (latin: ratio).
Which is exactly the point of the argument I am making.
And it is not a question of who is more intelligent. Every atheist will agree that this conundrum is indeed irrational, once she understands what I am talking about. It's just like with mathematics: you have to agree that 1+2 = 2. Before you understood it, you might not have agreed, but once you understand it, you have no choice.
And I mean what should they do about it? They have two irrational choices, believe in God or an eternal irrational world. Of course they'd chose what their peers chose: atheism...
They have choice of perception which you never included
What do you mean by this?
I concede that there is a third choice: Agnosticism. Which means not believing that there is a God but saying you cannot know. In my opinion this is actually the only real alternative to believing that God exists.
This can be answered with cause-effect reasoning. A cause-effect relationship is a relationship in which one event (the cause) makes another event happen (the effect). One cause can have several effects. Assuming again god created this universe, universe is the product of him. Every product like a house, is the work of an agent therefore the world which is a product, must have an agent or creator who is called god. But we know this inference is inconclusive, because the one of the premise 'the world is a product' is doubtful. How is it proved that the world is a product? It can't be said that the world is a product because it has parts. Wherever we perceive anything being produced, the producer or the agent is found to work on the material with his limbs.
We don't have to bring the idea of product into this. The world is a causal thing. Look out the window. Everything happens for a reason. Trees grow, because a seed once fell into the gorund and the sun gives its energy. The argument has nothing to do with wether the world is a product or not. Causality is enough, and causality is real.
We have to bring this one as well. An Indian theist branch 'Nyaya' holds this argument of cause-effect reasoning for proving the existence of God.
I do agree it is worth considering. But I do not understand why it is necessary to consider it in the context of above argument. Please elaborate.
God is said to be bodiless. How can he then work on matter to produce the world?
Yeah, God is also irrational. We cannot understand how he could work on matter. Just as we cannot understand a world that created itself or has no reason.
At least we can trust on our perception because it is the only reliable source remained. It can elaborate who created this universe.
Perception is a funny thing and there could be said a lot about wether it is trustworthy or not. But lets assume we can rely on it. As you can see causality is an observable thing. It is the basis for my argument. Thus from this basis I concluded toward the reason for existence.
My logic allows me to write some prepositions-
- Everyhting has a creator
- God is that creator
Illogical conclusion- God does not have a creator (it fails because it violates its own premise here )
Yes, the fact that God is His own reason, is not understandable by our rational minds. And neither is a causal chain without any reason for existing. There simply is no rational answer to the question of why there is anything.
-
RE: Trading and earning money
@DIVa said in Trading and earning money:
@PetrAPark3r
sorry dude,
the only thing we can do is manually moderate these mischievous ad-driven accounts, so its best to flag the posts and the accounts to help us!Will do!
-
RE: How do you relax?
@cjko said in How do you relax?:
Hmmm it depends on what level of stress I have.. haha but I do things to relax , these are the following : listening music, play musical instruments, movie marathon alone, writing anything, painting, doing crafts, beach, connect with nature, eat happy food, talk with pets, talk with the people I trust , memes, watch funny movies, play word games,bicycling, long walk,etc.
I wish I had a beach close by... Memes don't relax me hehe. Funny movies kinda do though. What kind of instruments do you play?
-
RE: Do you hide your faith?
@Matt_Aranha said in Do you hide your faith?:
One would also hope that an authority figures might have a better education regarding the relationship between the two faiths.
I cannot say about the C of E, but in the catholic church there is not much of an education of how to properly deal with people of other religions. At best there is an education about the world religions. And paganism is pretty complicated it seems, and not very widespread in contrast to the world religions. And the education needs to end after a few years you know?
I feel there is a certain responsibility not to pre-judge, isn't that a basic tenet of Christian teaching?
Yes. Of course you are right. In fact it's like the with the pharisees. They accused Jesus for eating with sinners, and he answered them with: the sick need the physician, not the healthy. So yeah, Jesus wouldn't be like that.
It has to do with another part of the faith. The bible is full of occurrences of demons and evil spirits. And it tells them to be careful, awake, and keep away from them. However most people don't read the bible properly. They don't understand what that means! They don't understand what goal the demons in the bible allways have: to make people to hate, judge, condemn and not love God and each other.
So, I guess it is understandable for a "normal" Christian to shy away from these things because he or she doesn't understand, but I agree that a priest should know better.
Of everything, generally, the way a family ought to be.
That is a good thing.
and my uncle fully and enthusiastically participated. Much like myself I think he understood (he passed away two months ago) that intent is what is important, it doesn't matter what you call a ceremony or your God/s and/or Goddesses as we're all part of something bigger. He wasn't one for ego and did a lot of interfaith work along with taking on/pioneering a lot of other equality initiatives
Now to be honest, I don't fully agree with this. Just take a – pretty stupid – example: Imagine you believed you could fly. So you jump of a building. This believe is not equal to the believe that you as a human bean can not fly in fact. Objectively even. Get's you killed. And thus I do believe you can be closer to the truth and further. Also in spiritual matters...
However I fully agree with not judging. Like at all. As if any of us were better than others... such nonsense.
For an umbrella faith which ought to be very easy-going there are some very egotistic entitled types in the community who will insist on there being specific right ways and wrong ways of doing things. "Eclectics" (as those who don't follow just one path are known) can be viewed as frothy, whimsical or undedicated. Whereas I find Wicca and some higher forms of Druidry (let's not even touch on Crowleyism and other ceremonial magicks) extraordinarily dogmatic, much like a formal church and entirely missing the point. You might get some Wiccans suggesting other forms of witchcraft aren't valid because they are blind to seeing how it works without the structure and formality of Wicca; conversely you'll find some hedge witches and people in traditional covens/circles who won't acknowledge Wicca because it is so (relatively) new. People who won't accept you as a Druidic practitioner because you're not a member of OBOD or such. I know one published Heathen academic authoress well who is terribly arrogant, she presents an argument (based on history) that Heathenry is the only authentic tradition still existing and so is dismissive and quite rude of any other Pagan's beliefs if they are not also Heathen. It's sad... unfortunately you get good peeps and assholes in every faith
Yeah, Christians killed each other. They killed each other over being right. What. The. Fuck.
You never know what is true, not 100%. I take a scientific approach to most things myself, married with logic, though have been learning to trust my gut more. The thing is I don't feel I need to be certain of anything. My belief system seems to the only one which I can make fit science and logic too. We explain with science now things which seem phenomenally simple basic concepts yet which if you showed to somebody a thousand years ago would be branded as magic. The things I'm involved with/tapped into I don't view as magic, rather as science which is yet to be explained. I don't need to know the specifics of how something works, if it does.
So experimenting hmm. Yeah, that kind of makes sense. But also feels a bit like playing with fire...
I think I kinda get where you're trying to ask, maybe. My anchor is myself and the faith understanding that all energy is recycled. I don't see the Gods and Goddesses as literal, but as aspects of whatever the divine actually is.
So you're actually a Pantheist? Would that fit?
-
RE: Trading and earning money
@DIVa said in Trading and earning money:
@PetrAPark3r
sorry dude,
the only thing we can do is manually moderate these mischievous ad-driven accounts, so its best to flag the posts and the accounts to help us!Could you also change the title of the topic to deleted or something? This might actually be a feature request (to happen automatically when mods delete posts...)
-
RE: Can one person make a difference?
@TheGoldenMole said in Can one person make a difference?:
@lego-batman wow... this was kind of inspiring!
Why thank you, it means quite something to me, if people really are inspired. Real change is not about a moment of inspiration, and what you do afterwards, it's the things you do every day, that will make a difference in the end, for the better or the worse. Time is the most valueable thing we have, so chose whisely what to do with yours.
-
RE: Do you hide your faith?
@Matt_Aranha said in Do you hide your faith?:
@petrapark3r said in Do you hide your faith?:
So you're actually a Pantheist? Would that fit?
I would say not, when I've read about Pantheism (which I haven't done a great deal of, admittedly) it hasn't clicked with me and some of the ideas don't quite gel with my beliefs.
Yeah, as with Paganism it seems, there are many ways of Pantheism too. But basically Pantheism means the idea, that God is actually everything, that everything is God. But maybe you don't see it that way, maybe that was just my mistake...
Just for the record: The christian faith is a form of Pan-en-theism, which means that even though creation and God ar distinct (are not one and the same) that God is in everything and everything is in God.
-
RE: Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Assuming sun is not made yet but light has been made I may sleep at 12.30AM or even 2.00 AM. Thus, their 1 day was not exactly of 24 hours , it could be 22 hours or 26 hours. It will make creation dubious further. Therefore it cannot be definitely said that he completed his work in 7 days. Perhaps more than that or even lesser than that.
- A wrong interpretation is and stays wrong, no matter how many people believe in it. There have been lots of heresies in the history of the christianity. None of them are correct. No the bible alone is not a reliable source of the true christian doctrine. You need to have the Holy Spirit to interpret the bible correctly and you need to be united to the true apostolic church.
- I have proven to you that the literal intepretation of Genisis is complete nonsense
- I don't agree with this literal interpretation
And yet you keep bringing it up. And you think refuting your own nonsensical interpretation of the bible is an argument...
Worse than this, my original line of thought is completely philosophical in nature. Bringing a up the bible is out of context, and cannot be called an argument.
I will answer some of your other points later...