The reason why Christianity seems so unrealistic and naive

Quote from stu:

Whenever your argument falls over and has become illogical, you invariably shout "logic" and accuse me of being emotional.


Yes, someone brought up strings before and then you said this...
"God might be an omniscient omnipotent string membrane. "

I asked why would you give something that already had it's own name and scientific explanation, a different name and a non scientific explanation?

Now you've morphed that into not calling a string membrane God, not because it isn't anything to do with omniscient or omnipotent, but because to call it God, a string membrane would need a consciousness and be aware of its creation.
You'd call it God , because it had consciousness and would be aware of its creation?!?

My point remains the same. String membranes were introduced to you only via science. They have nothing to do with omniscience, omnipotence, consciousness, or awareness of their own creation .
So you make up arbitrary nonsensical conditions for a God thing (religious) as your only response to string membranes (scientific)

I ask again .Why try to turn a scientific explanation into questions about God? Is it just to try and get some reflected glory for religion from science ?

Time for you to shout "logic" again.


Your first cause God .....would have to be created?? Do you even have half a clue where you're setting your baseline in the first place, or what it is you are even trying to say or suggest?
You've mentioned it twice in one post. A first cause to be called God, needs to be aware if its creation!! God was created?!?

When you call for logic then you'll have to start somewhere to "scientize" what you are saying, otherwise stop trying to pretend you're having anything to do with logic.

Time for you to cry "emotional" again.
More...

I will stick with this -- you post has zero worth.
 
I did not assert what you claiming I asserted.

I could just call you a liar, but that's really too easy.

You made a claim, I am challenging the veracity of the claim, it is up to the initial claimant to offer the evidence for their claim in defense.

If you were quoting directly, you would find your mistake...

Instead, you leave it to your own bias...and produce falsehood.

The quote I reference is in this thread. I know here it is, it is easy to find.

So find it, quote it, and admit your mistake.

The rest of your blather is meaningless...

Quote from PatternRec:

So what exactly are you saying? What is wrong with what?

If you have a problem with it, reiterate your position and stop this cunty game already. That's how little girls roll. I son't think anyone here can see what is wrong with my assessment of your failure to prove totality is God.

You once again have an opportunity to submit a simple "no this is what I mean" or "this is what I said" and that will suffice. Because from my recollection, you were trying to associated totality with God. Your whole, "sum of the parts... the whole... totality... God ...blah blah" quasi-Taoism/Hinduism gibberish. If you're going to borrow from a religious thought, at least get the basics right before expanding on it to make it your own.
More...
 
Quote from PatternRec:

So what exactly are you saying? What is wrong with what?

If you have a problem with it, reiterate your position and stop this cunty game already. That's how little girls roll. I son't think anyone here can see what is wrong with my assessment of your failure to prove totality is God.

You once again have an opportunity to submit a simple "no this is what I mean" or "this is what I said" and that will suffice. Because from my recollection, you were trying to associated totality with God. Your whole, "sum of the parts... the whole... totality... God ...blah blah" quasi-Taoism/Hinduism gibberish. If you're going to borrow from a religious thought, at least get the basics right before expanding on it to make it your own.
More...

+111 :D
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:


You made a claim, I am challenging the veracity of the claim, it is up to the initial claimant to offer the evidence for their claim in defense.


The rest of your blather is meaningless...
More...

LOLOL..

sorry pretty funny YOU of all people saying this :D
 
Doesn't matter who says it. If you are focusing on who said it, not the truth of the comments...that puts you in a position of practicing an unreasonable ad hominem fallacy...

Quote from killthesunshine:

LOLOL..

sorry pretty funny YOU of all people saying this :D
More...
 
I was giving you an out and a chance to reiterate which would have been to you benefit. But you had to go the cunty route.

So here we go...

Quote from OPTIONAL777:


I am certain of Totality, and I have faith that Totality is God.

What are you not clear on?
More...

Then when questioned about how you can come to such a conclusion, you add...


Quote from OPTIONAL777:


Descartes logic...

If there is only actually nothing, then there is a totality of nothing.

If there is only actually somethings, then there is a totality of somethings.

If there is only actually everything, then there is a totality of everything.

If there is combination of nothing, and somethings, and everything, then there is a totality of something, nothing and everything combined.
More...

Then when I challenged you further, you add as a proof...

Quote from OPTIONAL777:
God is not physical in nature, as the physical is limited and bound by time and space...where God exists eternally in all times and all spaces equally, and in no time and no space simultaneously. That is because God, by my definition is Totality, but where most people think of Totality only existing as a totality...a net result of the total of all the parts, God eternally exists as both a Totality, and each part within the boundaries of the Totality of God have the same value as the Totality itself.
More...

And there we have it. I was correct in my recollection.

This is a failure to prove totality is God and vice versa. You might think it's sufficient. But all it is, is a conceptualization.

Now piss off with your silly cuntiness. And next time requote your own damn self and use it as an opportunity to further clarify.

LOL @ put up or shut up.
 
I have faith, yes.

That is not an assertion. I am not asserting that others should share that faith, or that my faith is right and that others are wrong.

I have faith, yes.

The broad blunt axe with which you try to make points is dull and bloody pointless...

Quote from PatternRec:

I was giving you an out and a chance to reiterate which would have been to you benefit. But you had to go the cunty route.

So here we go...



Then when questioned about how you can come to such a conclusion, you add...




Then when I challenged you further, you add as a proof...



And there we have it. I was correct in my recollection.

This is a failure to prove totality is God and vice versa. You might think it's sufficient. But all it is, is a conceptualization.

Now piss off with your silly cuntiness. And next time requote your own damn self and use it as an opportunity to further clarify.

LOL @ put up or shut up.
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

I have faith, yes.

That is not an assertion. I am not asserting that others should share that faith, or that my faith is right and that others are wrong.

I have faith, yes.

The broad blunt axe with which you try to make points is dull and bloody pointless...
More...

Nice try.

Want to see what you said again? Of course you do. You're pathologically narcissistic.

from OPTIONAL777:
God is not physical in nature, as the physical is limited and bound by time and space...where God exists eternally in all times and all spaces equally, and in no time and no space simultaneously. That is because God, by my definition is Totality, but where most people think of Totality only existing as a totality...a net result of the total of all the parts, God eternally exists as both a Totality, and each part within the boundaries of the Totality of God have the same value as the Totality itself.
More...

Assertions:

1. God is not physical in nature.
2. God is eternal in all times and all spaces equally.
3. God, by my definition is totality.
4. God exists as both as totality and each part within the boundaries of totality... blah blah (paradoxically nonsense.)

There's no, "I believe" or "it's possible that" before each of these. These are affirmative assertions. All of which have no proof. Not even logical proof.

If you are unsure what an assertion is, look it up. Google is your friend.

Unfortunately for you, now it's on the record for posterity's sake.

Good day.
 
Quote from PatternRec:

I was giving you an out and a chance to reiterate which would have been to you benefit. But you had to go the cunty route.

So here we go...



Then when questioned about how you can come to such a conclusion, you add...




Then when I challenged you further, you add as a proof...



And there we have it. I was correct in my recollection.

This is a failure to prove totality is God and vice versa. You might think it's sufficient. But all it is, is a conceptualization.

Now piss off with your silly cuntiness. And next time requote your own damn self and use it as an opportunity to further clarify.

LOL @ put up or shut up.
More...

Now piss off with your silly cuntiness.

And next time requote your own damn self and use it as an opportunity to further clarify.

ROFL +1111111111 oh geesus :D
 
Yes, that is my faith. Not denying that is my faith.

Not an assertion though....just my faith.

The preamble was:

"I am certain of Totality, and I have faith that Totality is God."

What followed was an exposition of that faith...not an assertion.

Took a while to train you, like some poor dumb mutt, but finally you went and fetched the paper...

No go along Fido, and pee on some hydrant...or have some bizarre fantasy of an alien female being orgasmic...

You have the con, to continue jerking off as you wish...

Quote from PatternRec:

Nice try.

Want to see what you said again? Of course you do. You're pathologically narcissistic.



Assertions:

1. God is not physical in nature.
2. God is eternal in all times and all spaces equally.
3. God, by my definition is totality.
4. God exists as both as totality and each part within the boundaries of totality... blah blah (paradoxically nonsense.)

There's no, "I believe" or "it's possible that" before each of these. These are affirmative assertions. All of which have no proof. Not even logical proof.

Unfortunately for you, now it's on the record for posterity's sake.

Good day.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top