You are proud , I am humbledQuote from Barth Vader:
Actually, stu, you are in line with orthodox theological thinking on this matter! [I am proud of you]

Right, ok, so IF any portion of a "knowledge of G-D" is conceived of in the mind of man, that is most definitely a "no-god".Quote from Barth Vader:
G-D is indeed "no thing" and "nothing", and if I may carry your position one step forward, is most definitely a "no-god" IF any portion of a "knowledge of G-D" is conceived of in the mind of man.
Hang on a minute. That is a "portion of a knowledge of G-D"Quote from Barth Vader:
G-D can only be known as a consequence of a self revealing by G-D, such as in the person of Christ, or the prophets of Israel.

Quote from stu:
Quote from jem:
this is what stu wrote
Quote from jem:
It is only the asswipes who make statements which can not be proven.
Quote from jem:
He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt.
facts are facts.
-------------
Now this is straight out of the elitetrader asswipe bag of tricks. I have no idea what Stu is like in real life.
But I do know nothing he writes here can be trusted.
Stu makes it looks like Palin's quote was mine. Even though I specifically said her quote carries with it the implicit statement that she believes in God therefore in her belief God could create or allow for evolution.
Quote from jem:
It is only the asswipes who make statements which can not be proven.
Quote from stu:
First I notice you have learned a new word. Someone should let you know using it all the time doesn't help your argument any. It just makes you look like the ignorant crude redneck you clearly are.
Second, neither you nor Palin made the statement which can be proven.
Palin made a statement , you repeated it and tried to perversely turn the need over to prove the statement wrong , onto those you call atheists. First off according to your own words, neither Palin nor you should be making statements which cannot be proven.
Both Palin and you , who repeated the statement and according to your own rules , should not be making those statements which cannot be proven. That is what you said.
According to your own unfortunate description, both you and Palin are asswipes.
I suggest it's time for both you and your responses to grow up.
Time and space son, time and space...
You think of residing at a particular place at a particular time that is separate from another place and time, when God resides at all places and no particular place continuously with no starting or ending time.

Quote from Mav88:
hey dipshit, I was making a temporal only argument.
I should not expect some uneducated muslim troll to understand I guess, especially when you describe time as an absolute that should have tipped me off that you really don't know anything about physics.
Christian scholars tried this sort of crap before. Long after they were rebuked, here comes muslim man trapped in the dark ages and thinking he has some intellectually profound ideas. What a great parody of the entire islamic cult.
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
All analogies have their limits...
Applying any analogies of things to God, will yield the type of confusion you have when you try to apply that to God.
"where does God reside"
At all places in all times and in no particular place at no particular time.
The problem you are having is common, when God is analyzed from partial point of view.
You think of residing at a particular place at a particular time that is separate from another place and time, when God resides at all places and no particular place continuously with no starting or ending time.
Relativistic logic will forever fail in any understanding of the nature of God...
God is absolute...physical relativism simply cannot grasp the concept of God who exists without any relationship to something separate from God.