Search results

The criticisms of Pascal's wager only apply if Thunderstruck is not a true believer (he most likely is), is wrong (who knows), and if he is not worshipping the perfect denomination of the true religion (if there is a correct religion). Who knows, maybe he is one of a handful of people on this...

Several mistakes later, I am still asking myself....is this the guy who was correcting MY spelling error? ("you have a choose"-different word, different spelling, as Thunderstruck would say)

"DON'T TALK SMACK ABOUT MY FAN CLUB, LEST I STICK A THUNDERBOLT UP YOUR ASS (and you know he'll talk your head...er ass off)!!!!" -GOD

I'm in 3 fantasy leagues. WHERE IS THIS LEAGUE???

Wow, you have a very optimistic view of humanity. Wish I did! :)

Stu, technically this doesn't prove that God (if there is a God) is not abundant in goodness. It might prove that the BIBLICAL God is not abundant in goodness, however.

Sad to think that this is how Thunderstruck plans to become an "elite " member! I still am waiting to find out WHAT this guy, who makes more than all us "newbies," trades!!!!

I prefer, "Did your mother have any children that lived??" [Full Metal Jacket] -or- "Hard to believe that he beat out millions of other sperm!" :confused:

:)

1 post and this is it??????????????????????

Wow, the journalist out of Colombia (the no.1 school for Journalism) had a typo! Wahoooooooooooooo! :)

not if you are debating the possibility of an attribute, and not in that instance proving whether a being exists. What's more, he was responding to arguments claiming an inherent contradiction in the concept of "omnipotence." He was not attempting to use it to "prove" that God exists.

The latter part of your statement is very significant. However, some of the highest concepts you refer to do lie in advanced mathematical framework, but could never be reduced to silly word games!

That depends how far you take it. When you get into the most abstract concepts, words are limited, and to use words to create some petty contradiction (where the contradiction is created primarily by using the definitions of a communications system of a species). The concept of all powerful...

This is ridiculous. Not only can intelligent people think irrationally, but you have overlooked the fact that brilliant people throughout history have contradicted one another when it comes to religion (among other things). Weren't there brilliant ancient Greeks, Romans, buddhists, Hindus, Jews...

We can talk intelligently while AVOIDING absurd games of semantics. Argue relevant and legitimate logic, not word games that bring down the broadest concepts into games of our communications and recognize the limitations of our logic systems.

I mentioned this argument earlier (twice). These are word games. They are simply using words and an extremely finite and limited communication and logic system to challenge the notion of "all-powerful." Semantics.

These are word games, nothing more.

If we want to take this to the extreme, "we" don't know he exists in any form. All that I know is that I think and that I exist.