That's a fairly sweeping generalization.
to the atheists on the board
- Thread starter kungfoofighting
- Start date
That's a fairly sweeping generalization.
Stu,
This went right over his head. Big surprise huh??
ART... stop playing STUPID.
Arguing from ignorance is not going to save you.
Let me put it another way, since you completely missed
what stu so CLEARLY stated.
If stu claims that this GILBERT is absolute +1 and has ALL
those qualities you listed for god, then as a *THIRD PERSON*
should I NOT choose this "Gilbert" over your INFERIOR god?
After all, he is "absolute +1" according to *STU's* faith.
And what if MY faith also tells me that Gilbert is also "absolute +1"
and agrees with Stus faith??
Therefore, it seems that your faith as let you down, and
according to your own logic, I have no choice but to choose
"Gilbert" over your weaker god.
Ive used the same argument before, and you have never
resolved this huge gaping hole in your silly belief system.
I can simply "faith" that you are wrong.
I can simply "faith" that my god is better than yours.
I can simply "faith" that my god is the ONLY god and yours is fake.
Nothing but contradictions.
Faith obviously cannot help us in identifying the truth.
peace
axeman
This went right over his head. Big surprise huh??
ART... stop playing STUPID.
Arguing from ignorance is not going to save you.
Let me put it another way, since you completely missed
what stu so CLEARLY stated.
If stu claims that this GILBERT is absolute +1 and has ALL
those qualities you listed for god, then as a *THIRD PERSON*
should I NOT choose this "Gilbert" over your INFERIOR god?
After all, he is "absolute +1" according to *STU's* faith.
And what if MY faith also tells me that Gilbert is also "absolute +1"
and agrees with Stus faith??
Therefore, it seems that your faith as let you down, and
according to your own logic, I have no choice but to choose
"Gilbert" over your weaker god.
Ive used the same argument before, and you have never
resolved this huge gaping hole in your silly belief system.
I can simply "faith" that you are wrong.
I can simply "faith" that my god is better than yours.
I can simply "faith" that my god is the ONLY god and yours is fake.
Nothing but contradictions.
Faith obviously cannot help us in identifying the truth.
peace
axeman
>The instances of people who have found what they are
>looking for with faith in God, and then give up that practice
>to look for something greater in the realm of science are
>few and far between....if at all.
Well, that does it. How can one argue against such a completely convincing argument. I give up.
JB
>looking for with faith in God, and then give up that practice
>to look for something greater in the realm of science are
>few and far between....if at all.
Well, that does it. How can one argue against such a completely convincing argument. I give up.
JB
Watching ART in this debate is like watching a tennis match
between two pros, and ART is the *BALL*. LMAO
SLAM!!! Your turn.... SLAM!!! Your turn.... SLAM!!!
But its ok.... because he will "FAITH" that he has won.
Aaaah... must be nice to be so delusional
Now I await another episode of "Armchair pop psychology" LOL!
peace
axeman
between two pros, and ART is the *BALL*. LMAO
SLAM!!! Your turn.... SLAM!!! Your turn.... SLAM!!!
But its ok.... because he will "FAITH" that he has won.
Aaaah... must be nice to be so delusional
Now I await another episode of "Armchair pop psychology" LOL!
peace
axeman
Some have a concept of God, that HE is bound by time, space, relativistic logic, and mathematics.
That is not the definition that Theists use.
The relativistic thinkers often use the famous question to illustrate their difficulty with a Supreme Being in the logical games that they play :
"Can God create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it?"
My answer to that question is that yes, God can create at stone so heavy that He can't lift it, and at the same time He is able to lift it.
It is logically a contradiction according to the rules of logic, and is not possible from the perspective of our rules and experiential understanding of time and spacial relationships.
If we use only the faculty of eye sight only from earth without anything else we clearly see the sun moving around the earth. By going to a deeper level, we begin to see that our sight and conclusions are relative to spatial relationships, and from a vantage point of a further distance whereby we can see both the sun and the moon at the same time, we can easily see a deeper reality and come to a different conclusion.
If we force definitions of God to conform to relativistic logic, to the rules that our limited intellect can come up with, then we are creating a definition of God on that basis. "God must conform to our rules" is the motto of the intellect based skeptic.
I would ask why we should we accept that limited definition of God, that God is bound by our human logic, any more than a definition of God as not bound by the rules of our logic?
Logically, in this world of time and space, it is not possible for it to be both raining and not raining at the same time. That is the reality of this world.
However, how do we know that our reality is the only true and correct reality?
Can most people imagine the co-existence of opposite values occupying the exact same space at the exact same time?
Of course not, as that is not possible in a world bound by time and space.
Yet God is defined as being everywhere at no particular time, not bound by time and space.
If we use our reality to confirm reality, then it is a circular reasoning process as we have no check on what is reality outside of our own mind and belief systems.
Who really is to say what is real?
We can clearly say that we are temporal beings form our observation and experience, and we can also say that our concept of ultimate truth is defined as that which is not temporal. So by what means can a temporal being know the non temporal reality of ultimate truth?
Faith in God is the answer that some have provided as a means to solve this riddle.
That is not the definition that Theists use.
The relativistic thinkers often use the famous question to illustrate their difficulty with a Supreme Being in the logical games that they play :
"Can God create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it?"
My answer to that question is that yes, God can create at stone so heavy that He can't lift it, and at the same time He is able to lift it.
It is logically a contradiction according to the rules of logic, and is not possible from the perspective of our rules and experiential understanding of time and spacial relationships.
If we use only the faculty of eye sight only from earth without anything else we clearly see the sun moving around the earth. By going to a deeper level, we begin to see that our sight and conclusions are relative to spatial relationships, and from a vantage point of a further distance whereby we can see both the sun and the moon at the same time, we can easily see a deeper reality and come to a different conclusion.
If we force definitions of God to conform to relativistic logic, to the rules that our limited intellect can come up with, then we are creating a definition of God on that basis. "God must conform to our rules" is the motto of the intellect based skeptic.
I would ask why we should we accept that limited definition of God, that God is bound by our human logic, any more than a definition of God as not bound by the rules of our logic?
Logically, in this world of time and space, it is not possible for it to be both raining and not raining at the same time. That is the reality of this world.
However, how do we know that our reality is the only true and correct reality?
Can most people imagine the co-existence of opposite values occupying the exact same space at the exact same time?
Of course not, as that is not possible in a world bound by time and space.
Yet God is defined as being everywhere at no particular time, not bound by time and space.
If we use our reality to confirm reality, then it is a circular reasoning process as we have no check on what is reality outside of our own mind and belief systems.
Who really is to say what is real?
We can clearly say that we are temporal beings form our observation and experience, and we can also say that our concept of ultimate truth is defined as that which is not temporal. So by what means can a temporal being know the non temporal reality of ultimate truth?
Faith in God is the answer that some have provided as a means to solve this riddle.
Faith in God is the answer that some have provided as a means to solve this riddle.
Obviously not. We have already proven how USELESS faith is
in finding the truth.
Im still voting for Stu's friend "Gilbert".
After all... he is "absolute +1" and has all the same qualities
you require in your god to believe. But he is not your god.
Therefore... your faith sux. It has failed you. Its totally flawed
Since your whole argument is based on this faith nonsense, it
is also nothing but fairytale nonsense.
peace
axeman
Obviously not. We have already proven how USELESS faith is
in finding the truth.
Im still voting for Stu's friend "Gilbert".
After all... he is "absolute +1" and has all the same qualities
you require in your god to believe. But he is not your god.
Therefore... your faith sux. It has failed you. Its totally flawed
Since your whole argument is based on this faith nonsense, it
is also nothing but fairytale nonsense.
peace
axeman
Space flight at one time was fantasy.