You have no argument.
You simply define your god to be that which is undefinable.
The same as Sagans mythical dragon in the garage.
You follow the pattern precisely. Every time I point out
a problem, you simply redefine the problem away.
Sorry.... but there simply is no difference between such
a god and a made up story.
A god I cannot see, touch, feel, sense, observe, verify,
test, compare, or measure in any way consistently is
no different than a figment of your imagination.
Better re-read this:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
and then explain to us why your god is any different than the dragon.
peace
axeman
You simply define your god to be that which is undefinable.
The same as Sagans mythical dragon in the garage.
You follow the pattern precisely. Every time I point out
a problem, you simply redefine the problem away.
Sorry.... but there simply is no difference between such
a god and a made up story.
A god I cannot see, touch, feel, sense, observe, verify,
test, compare, or measure in any way consistently is
no different than a figment of your imagination.
Better re-read this:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
and then explain to us why your god is any different than the dragon.
peace
axeman
Quote from ARogueTrader:
Your proof stands as it relates to anything that is material and relative, but doesn't relate to supreme God.
Two people can have faith in contradictory things, but God is beyond contradiction. Contradiction is a condition of relativity, not absoluteness.
Those who do not practice faith in supreme God have an intellectual issue, not a faith issue.
Right tool, right job, right application.