what if it is Noah's Ark
- Thread starter qdz3se
- Start date
No it isn't.
There is nothing outside of a blind unsupportable belief for the existence of God.
There is overwhelming compelling support for the existence of the universe
The statements are about truth not paths.
Paths are not truth.
But if I go along for the sake of argument, you say the paths are equally valid.
Then you are only confirming what I say.... that it is equally valid to follow the path of No God as truth.
There is no failure on a path to truth when it leads to truth of No God.
From your ridiculous argument you have now created a situation where there can be no such thing as your description of a failed theist on a path to No God. The failing theist is now on a path to God!!
Faith needs a legitimacy to make it anything more than simply an un supported invalid notion.
In all the many posts you have made on your self-contradictory theistic, apologetic, religious hooey through various threads, you have not added one jot of legitimacy to any of your claims.
All you have ever achieved is to reduce your own argument into absurdity.
......the description of nothing more than fantasy.Quote from damir00:
i don't. i'm just human so i express things in terms of human constructs. my conceptualization of g-d is that "it" is the "thing" at the heart of the universal process that gives us free will - but that isn't something easily visualizable in conversation!
No it isn't.
There is nothing outside of a blind unsupportable belief for the existence of God.
There is overwhelming compelling support for the existence of the universeThe statements are about truth not paths.
Paths are not truth.
You have evidence that God does not in fact exist? You have blind unsupported belief perhaps that God does not exist, but no proof thereof.
You are blinded by the intellect and doubt. Unlike computers who have no choice but to process according to their programming, human beings are free to program themselves to their own conclusions.
You choose to follow your own programming, I choose to follow my own programming, and neither can prove the other wrong when it comes to the existence of God, nor the value of faith in knowing God. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
That you deny that part of your own humanity that makes us human and not computers is of course your option.
But if I go along for the sake of argument, you say the paths are equally valid. Then you are only confirming what I say.... that it is equally valid to follow the path of No God as truth.
Of course your path is a valid path. Some would say it is a valid path to the truth of eternal hell.
There is no failure on a path to truth when it leads to truth of No God.
If you seek non God, I think you will find non God, in fact, it appears to me that you have already found non God, are living non God, and choose to remain in a state of non God.
Can a fish die of thirst in a body of water? Sure, it simply has to stop swallowing water.
You can choose a truthful path of non God and you will get the reward of that path, no doubt.
From your ridiculous argument you have now created a situation where there can be no such thing as your description of a failed theist on a path to No God. The failing theist is now on a path to God!!
From your ridiculous position of non God, you fail to see that you are a failed theist by definition.
Faith needs a legitimacy to make it anything more than simply an un supported invalid notion.
The legitimacy of faith is in the experiences that follow. You failed to practice faith at a time when faith was most needed, and the experiences that followed are manifested in your atheism and bitterness toward those who did not lose their faith.
In all the many posts you have made on your self-contradictory theistic, apologetic, religious hooey through various threads, you have not added one jot of legitimacy to any of your claims.
Pffft. Come down off your soapbox.
I claim the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proof of the intellect is in the intellect, the proof of the senses are in the senses, and the proof of faith is in faith.
All you have ever achieved is to reduce your own argument into absurdity.
The absurdity is to live a life solely based on conclusions and measurements of tools that are limited, and then judge and condemn those who follow a path of faith to be inferior.
It is by your intellect alone that you judge the intellect to be superior to faith when it comes to God and those who practice faith in God. It is a fact that your intellect led you to the path of non God, i.e. atheism and its practice.
You are one fanatical personality. Oh well, enjoy the trip on your wheel.
If you claim faith in God is the path to truth, you still have to show a legitimacy for your statement, otherwise it is as invalid or valid as ANY other statement.
You can post as much BS about fish and puddings as you like, along with your silly graphics, but it won't change a thing.
Get over it.
Faith is a path to the truth of God. If you hadn't failed so miserably in your own practice of faith, you would be in a position to know that truth.
But you failed to follow the simple instructions of faith in God, and chose instead to have faith in your own limited intellect, so you came to the "truth" of non God, which is a product of human mind.
3,000 years ago, there was no proof that planets existed beyond the earth, because human beings lacked the instrumentation and knowledge of how to "see" them. We now claim those "primitive people" to be ignorant.
Today, with advancement of both thought and material instrumentation, the science of astronomy is accepted as fact.
So, when 3,000 years ago, people said there was nothing but the earth based on their knowledge, were they speaking a "truth."
If someone had said on the basis of faith that there were planets, etc. would he have been speaking a "truth?"
That you lack the ability to prove or disprove the existence of God according to your standards given your limited instrumentation and ignorance of the totality of all possible knowledge is the current human condition.
Some accept that condition as "truth" others practice faith in God as a path to a higher truth. Who can say who is really on a path to the "truth."
You are a fanatic because you preach your way is the ONLY way to truth.
You want someone to "show" you the truth of God, and the truth of the path of faith? How would you understand, as you already failed at faith? Unconditional truth is not something that can be shown, it is something that can only be discovered, and will be known not on the basis of relativistic logic or limited senses, but by that faculty of human nature that resides in the heart of man.
Now, if you want to live in a world of if_________, then ________ conditional truths, be my guest.
In my observation and opinion, you are bitter and angry because you know deep down inside, although you will never admit it in public or perhaps even to yourself, that you are a loser when it came to faith, and are now a practitioner of sour grapes.
Such is life where we are all free to choose our own philosophy of life and follow our own paths.
But you failed to follow the simple instructions of faith in God, and chose instead to have faith in your own limited intellect, so you came to the "truth" of non God, which is a product of human mind.
3,000 years ago, there was no proof that planets existed beyond the earth, because human beings lacked the instrumentation and knowledge of how to "see" them. We now claim those "primitive people" to be ignorant.
Today, with advancement of both thought and material instrumentation, the science of astronomy is accepted as fact.
So, when 3,000 years ago, people said there was nothing but the earth based on their knowledge, were they speaking a "truth."
If someone had said on the basis of faith that there were planets, etc. would he have been speaking a "truth?"
That you lack the ability to prove or disprove the existence of God according to your standards given your limited instrumentation and ignorance of the totality of all possible knowledge is the current human condition.
Some accept that condition as "truth" others practice faith in God as a path to a higher truth. Who can say who is really on a path to the "truth."
You are a fanatic because you preach your way is the ONLY way to truth.
You want someone to "show" you the truth of God, and the truth of the path of faith? How would you understand, as you already failed at faith? Unconditional truth is not something that can be shown, it is something that can only be discovered, and will be known not on the basis of relativistic logic or limited senses, but by that faculty of human nature that resides in the heart of man.
Now, if you want to live in a world of if_________, then ________ conditional truths, be my guest.
In my observation and opinion, you are bitter and angry because you know deep down inside, although you will never admit it in public or perhaps even to yourself, that you are a loser when it came to faith, and are now a practitioner of sour grapes.
Such is life where we are all free to choose our own philosophy of life and follow our own paths.
Faith is a path to the truth of God. If you hadn't failed so miserably in your own practice of faith, [then] you would be in a position to know that truth.
Faith is not a path to the truth of God. If you fail miserably in your own practice of faith, you will be in a position to know that truth.
You need to bring some legitimacy to either one of them so it can be substantiated. Otherwise both remain meaningless.
Your arguments are a joke
Talk of the sweetness of chocolate is meaningless to those who never tasted it, but prefer to live on salt and vinegar.
Talk of the beauty of the rainbow is meaningless to those who are color blind.
That you lack success in faith, and as such build your "case" on your failure is a joke.
The fox built his sour grapes case on the same line of reasoning.
Talk of the beauty of the rainbow is meaningless to those who are color blind.
That you lack success in faith, and as such build your "case" on your failure is a joke.
The fox built his sour grapes case on the same line of reasoning.
Quote from stu:
Both those statements have equal validity according to you.
Faith is a path to the truth of God. If you hadn't failed so miserably in your own practice of faith, [then] you would be in a position to know that truth.
Faith is not a path to the truth of God. If you fail miserably in your own practice of faith, you will be in a position to know that truth.
You need to bring some legitimacy to either one of them so it can be substantiated. Otherwise both remain meaningless.
Your arguments are a joke
How do you know that I am not tasting chocolate?
How do you know that I am not seeing the rainbow?
Ostriches?
Should I repost the "convention" again?
How do you know that I am not seeing the rainbow?
Ostriches?
Should I repost the "convention" again?
Quote from stu:
- Then why do you persist in not tasting chocolate,
suffer color blindness when you don't need to ( do you still see red instead of green as you do in another thread?),
lack success in faith (all faith has the same validity according to you)
Do foxes build sour grapes... or do ostriches