10 votes
Posted 09 August 2014 - 07:18 PM
This is my favorite SH post thus far!
It's quite something to stand in awe under the stars and take in the true wonder and majesty of the natural universe.
At times, this sort of experience makes me feel quite small and insignificant. However, as Neil deGrasse Tyson said, once you realize your relationship and interconnectedness to it all, you feel quite massive and significant.
Posted 09 August 2014 - 08:08 PM
Which God have we been talking about since detractors seem to want to call a teacup God or some other stick, stone or other carved made or caused thing God?? I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism as stated clearly in the topic. You can call anything a ball even a square if the definition can change and words do not have meaning. Isaiah in the old Testament laughed at Gods made out of sticks and stones and which were carved and made by human hands. Simply slipping in the name of a frog. For God does not make the frog, God. It entirely lacks the attributes of God as we are referring to here. So if a teacup is your god, I agree a teacup will not fit the bill. However that is not what I am referring to.
Okay, we can assume the sophisticated monotheistic god is Ahura Mazda.
The argument does not say which God, only that we emotionally long for God, We only long for real things. Zoroastrianism is monotheistic and Ahura Mazda the top spirit, is not omnipotent but needs human beings to help him. There are only a couple hundred to perhaps two million Zoroasters in the world today. Very small. However since we are talking about Christianity It is far bigger, and has an omnipotent God who is maximately great. That is our topic.
As for your prostitute, you long for her and porn because it is real and meets your real need. Therefore this does not defeat the argument.
"However since we are talking about Christianity It is far bigger, and has an omnipotent God who is maximately great. That is our topic."
More arguments from popularity. It does not matter how big Christianity is or how many people think it is reasonable.
Look up argumentative fallacies.
This is my favorite SH post thus far!
It's quite something to stand in awe under the stars and take in the true wonder and majesty of the natural universe.
At times, this sort of experience makes me feel quite small and insignificant. However, as Neil deGrasse Tyson said, once you realize your relationship and interconnectedness to it all, you feel quite massive and significant.
That's hilarious actually. I'm not sure what relevance this picture could have to the thread.
Now SH is derailing his own thread, which is even more amusing. I at least have to give SH some credit for being entertaining.
Posted 09 August 2014 - 11:27 PM
Which God have we been talking about since detractors seem to want to call a teacup God or some other stick, stone or other carved made or caused thing God?? I shall here assume that the God in question is that of a sophisticated monotheism as stated clearly in the topic. You can call anything a ball even a square if the definition can change and words do not have meaning. Isaiah in the old Testament laughed at Gods made out of sticks and stones and which were carved and made by human hands. Simply slipping in the name of a frog. For God does not make the frog, God. It entirely lacks the attributes of God as we are referring to here. So if a teacup is your god, I agree a teacup will not fit the bill. However that is not what I am referring to.
Okay, we can assume the sophisticated monotheistic god is Ahura Mazda.
The argument does not say which God, only that we emotionally long for God, We only long for real things. Zoroastrianism is monotheistic and Ahura Mazda the top spirit, is not omnipotent but needs human beings to help him. There are only a couple hundred to perhaps two million Zoroasters in the world today. Very small. However since we are talking about Christianity It is far bigger, and has an omnipotent God who is maximately great. That is our topic.
As for your prostitute, you long for her and porn because it is real and meets your real need. Therefore this does not defeat the argument.
"However since we are talking about Christianity It is far bigger, and has an omnipotent God who is maximately great. That is our topic."
More arguments from popularity. It does not matter how big Christianity is or how many people think it is reasonable.
Look up argumentative fallacies.
This is my favorite SH post thus far!
It's quite something to stand in awe under the stars and take in the true wonder and majesty of the natural universe.
At times, this sort of experience makes me feel quite small and insignificant. However, as Neil deGrasse Tyson said, once you realize your relationship and interconnectedness to it all, you feel quite massive and significant.
That's hilarious actually. I'm not sure what relevance this picture could have to the thread.
Now SH is derailing his own thread, which is even more amusing. I at least have to give SH some credit for being entertaining.
shadowhawk==please allow me to educate you as to why i think the picture is relevant. The BOOk by our GOD tells us that the heavens are a picture of GOD --infinite,everlasting,----------its the word of GOD sent to those who are here and have not heard the WORD but can see.Its a well known fact that groups of people who were not given the words of life by others but they just lived by the voice of conscience----and had a knowing of right wrong and a greater being!
Its the proof------of existence-----No physical body of Jesus is proof of LOVING -and some of these words spoken are proof-"the wise will be as fools--we love u anyway
Posted 10 August 2014 - 04:09 AM
That's hilarious actually. I'm not sure what relevance this picture could have to the thread.
Now SH is derailing his own thread, which is even more amusing. I at least have to give SH some credit for being entertaining.
shadowhawk==please allow me to educate you as to why i think the picture is relevant. The BOOk by our GOD tells us that the heavens are a picture of GOD --infinite,everlasting,----------its the word of GOD sent to those who are here and have not heard the WORD but can see.Its a well known fact that groups of people who were not given the words of life by others but they just lived by the voice of conscience----and had a knowing of right wrong and a greater being!
Its the proof------of existence-----No physical body of Jesus is proof of LOVING -and some of these words spoken are proof-"the wise will be as fools--we love u anyway
Based on your last few posts, I'm having a hard time deciding whether or not you're just trolling.
Your above post sounds quite similar to any Christian fanatic's rant based completely on subjectivity and personal beliefs. The heavens/cosmos are not proof of the existence of your Christian God.
In your last post, you mentioned that the Books of Genesis and Revelation are solid examples of "proof". Have you, in reality, ever read either of those books? The bulk of Genesis has long been disproven, and the rest is extremely improbable (and, as a result, unprovable). Revelation is a man's psychedelic trip (similar to the Doors of Perception). An experience that sounds straight out of Narnia.
Edited by MajinBrian, 10 August 2014 - 04:10 AM.
Posted 10 August 2014 - 02:31 PM
We discussed this as our first topic, Here it is again.
1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
WRONG CONCLUSION
The desire is named "evolution". It is thrust that is installed, by competition, for breeding, resources etc. It causes the existence of this thrust.
Why is this thrust eternal?
Because it is RELATIVE TO THE PAST.
A new "finding", a "new way of life", a "new way to get resources", "a new way to get what you need under premise 1" is always relative to what was.
For example my way of agriculture may be better than yours. I evolved it, I will teach my children and they will teach theirs and evolve it slightly further. Until this knowledge fails to provide for them being happy under premise 1 (lets say the climate changes or too many people copy the same process and exhaust the resource) at which point they will overthrow the entire "evolved tree of this knowledge of agriculture that I conceived and generations after me evolved" and start some new technique/way of living as a human being and getting resources in some other way from scratch (switch from agriculture to nomadic hunters and back, change location, migrate, whatever).
This evolutionary thrust is so strong in some people that it makes brothers compete against each other, move away from each other, sometimes even annihilate each other. This is the story of kain and abel but written in tangible biology in neurology.
This is how the thrust is eternal and causes neverending "suffering"(recognized exactly or vaguely for what it is by many philosophies from buddhism to lacan - http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Jouissance ) or trying to be better than you were (in the sense of providing for yourself and avoiding threats to yourself). A threat for humans can for example a social group that has better weapons than your social group. And it causes fear, fear causes evolution of weapons of that group or something similar, like war while they're still stronger.
This is the trust of evolution and in the domain of religion(irrational) it interpreted in various ways to provide the illusion that is the dualism of "good" and "evil" so much so that people regularly consider creatures like snakes to be evil and creatures like doves to be innocent and pure.
Since ever, that, which has survived, has deemed itself good and that which was extinct was deemed bad by the survivors. This is the esssence of master morality(nietzsche) and those who won always remain to be the masters, wether they desired it or not(were just defending). This is in fact the simple truth of existence and evolution. It also recognized for millenia in many ways out of which the most simplest wisdom is "history is written by the winners".
Edited by addx, 10 August 2014 - 02:40 PM.
Posted 10 August 2014 - 02:50 PM
I'm sure there are people who "found God", but in fact somehow released themselves from this pull (very often near death experiences or extreme traumatic loss of entire life inventory in some accident causing drift into egolessness), it is for me almost neurogically tangible and requires some more research. How to deactivate or reduce this drive which is especially strong in some types (narcissistic personalities, scarcity-type personalities).
I've experienced a release from this for some 30 minutes from it and it was beautiful, the world was sensed as "God" or "beautifulness of life"(seriously, this was an emotion) and I was happy to be a part of it, but I fully realise it is a neurologic mechanism. To be released from this "suffering" is beautiful, feeling content with oneself, grounded in the world and happy to be in it is something truly different from what I normally feel. I'm inclined to believe that buddhist monks and even some other similar techniques reach this state of consciousness to some level regularly but I'm also sure we will be able to manipulate it pharmacologically relatively soon, in the next decade or two, as my 30 minutes were a pharmacological accident.
Posted 12 August 2014 - 01:39 AM
Explain why Evolution desires anything that is not real. Desire is for what is real. The past cant explain it either. Explain how evolution relative to the past explains desire? You have not in any way defeated 1.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
addx: For example my way of agriculture may be better than yours. I evolved it, I will teach my children and they will teach theirs and evolve it slightly further. Until this knowledge fails to provide for them being happy under premise 1 (lets say the climate changes or too many people copy the same process and exhaust the resource) at which point they will overthrow the entire "evolved tree of this knowledge of agriculture that I conceived and generations after me evolved" and start some new technique/way of living as a human being and getting resources in some other way from scratch (switch from agriculture to nomadic hunters and back, change location, migrate, whatever).
This is nonsense and does not defeat premise 1 either. What irrational fantasy.
Posted 12 August 2014 - 03:57 AM
Explain why Evolution desires anything that is not real. Desire is for what is real. The past cant explain it either. Explain how evolution relative to the past explains desire?
Posted 12 August 2014 - 08:05 AM
Explain why Evolution desires anything that is not real. Desire is for what is real. The past cant explain it either. Explain how evolution relative to the past explains desire? You have not in any way defeated 1.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
addx: For example my way of agriculture may be better than yours. I evolved it, I will teach my children and they will teach theirs and evolve it slightly further. Until this knowledge fails to provide for them being happy under premise 1 (lets say the climate changes or too many people copy the same process and exhaust the resource) at which point they will overthrow the entire "evolved tree of this knowledge of agriculture that I conceived and generations after me evolved" and start some new technique/way of living as a human being and getting resources in some other way from scratch (switch from agriculture to nomadic hunters and back, change location, migrate, whatever).
Are you now arguing for intelligent design?
The second premise is untouched as well.
Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
All you have offered is meaningless names without any evidence. You do have blind faith but no real argument against the argument from desire.
Seriously?
If there is just one person on earth and we have premise 1 all is well.
What evolves is LEVEL OF CONTROL of the object that satisfies desires under premise 1. Increasing level of control is your premise 2.
The neverending desire of humans to have everything they imagined at their disposal at any time they like instantly - this would be the final equilibrium if humans evolved every tool possible for controlling anything from premise 1.
If there is two or more people on earth then they can compare who's better at having control of premise 1.
And there you go - you have an neverending desire to be better than the rest. As long as there is another person on the planet, you'll have the desire to impress, own, beat, compete or breed with this person. Otherwise you'll evolve control only enough to be truly content as an individual against the nonhuman odds.
If you were to be isolated forever you would soon learn that lack of "competition" or in other words lack of "human company" leads to insanity.
The "neverending desire" under premise number 2 is either satisfied by continuing competition with live people or it is satisfied by developing insanity(people on deserted islands often develop split personalities or go crazy after a long time).
You, for example, are satisfisying the premise 2 by perpetually engaging in discussions with us trying to beat us with some "arguments", trying to be better at knowing what's important for being a human or whatever. You are increasingly and repeatedly being dismissed for this "god-truth owning" and are typically reacting by isolating yourself further, declaring us to be content-less name callers and yet your only other option is full isolation from us which probably makes you insane enough to find a couple of more nutcase videos to soothe the pain and generate hope for an apostle follower of your own. You also display talking to yourself, go read your own Islam thread where you ask me questions out of thin air then answer then and do it repeatedly without any posts of mine. Go read it. I've been giving you free dilletant psychoanalsys although in a somewhat rough fashion, but there's no denying what's written there.
In your own premise 2 satisfiying you have evolved your argument tacticts obviously a great deal, you consciously and unconsciously commit all typical discussion fallacies, you have a whole inventory of ready "arguments" that you don't really understand but think they impress peoeple, you have your ways to squirm of situations when cornerned, you've been doing this for a while..
Why can't you even begin to understand this? The premise number 2 is easily satisfied with a shot of heroin. Other than that, it's dukkha/suffering/jousissance/whatever you name it.
A neverending desire is easily created neurologically by "awareness of past" which makes you "plan a better future" which then motivates you to invest effort into the plan. You can always better something so the desire is neverending as evolution is too. These functions are in fact functions of vmPFC part of the brain.
If you want to satisfy this "desire" under premise 2 all you need to do is bilaterally damage your ventromedial prefrontal cortex and you'll be happy as a horse or a dog to sit around and do nothing all day until something leading to food/sex/territory sparks your immediate attention. Read experiences from people who've had this happen to them or have studied such people.
Edited by addx, 12 August 2014 - 08:18 AM.
Posted 12 August 2014 - 02:16 PM
You are involved with your ego, all that patronizing about life, love, god, spirit and smugly implying how enlightened you are compared to those who have different beliefs, all of that is part of your ego. That is your ego speaking to uis.
There is nothing wrong with not knowing everything. There is something wrong with being a pompous hypocrite.
good catch----i guess i am saying --------that ego---me-- i ------becomes the god in my life------and i understand that if one wants to be accepted------or win---graduate-------excel--------EGO -must be number one--------
Learn the fancy----accepted language of the group! Dress like your there! Cover up the realities, that show your human side. Your food is the compliments---acceptance---OK so whats this have to do with the topic?????
EVERYTHING---------------forget trying to convince people Jesus is GOD--------------the reality is that we all choose our god-leader------some choose EGO---OK-cool--------the problem becomes when the EGO--worshipers have to proof---or justify there believe by saying other believes like--------BORN AGAIN believers--u know-those holy rollers---have no proof that Jesus is God----
Where is his{ JESUS}physical body? why did those bible authors know that "things unseen make up the things we do see", Book of Genesis shows anyone ready to hear that--------this world is a battle ground! Evil is here until time ends!
Israel will battle with neighbors until the end!
i can go on forever----PROOF-- Christianity is well explained---from Genesis to Revelation---its a true ----book of Directions---of how to understand the being of a human---
Posted 12 August 2014 - 11:12 PM
Addx I find your argument against the argument incoherent and it would be a waste of time to engage it. Ill let the readers decide if you said anything meaningful. You are not even addressing the argument.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
Posted 13 August 2014 - 01:30 AM
Addx I find your argument against the argument incoherent and it would be a waste of time to engage it. Ill let the readers decide if you said anything meaningful. You are not even addressing the argument.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
99% of readers have decided your arguments are meaningless
Posted 13 August 2014 - 08:01 AM
Addx I find your argument against the argument incoherent and it would be a waste of time to engage it. Ill let the readers decide if you said anything meaningful. You are not even addressing the argument.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
Ok, I'll try and make it simple for you.
I have a desire to be the best at everything others find important to be good at.
I have a desire to control everything others find important to control.
That's it.
There is always a real object that is aimed at to control.
There is always a real discipline at which I aim to be better at.
There is always other people which can have more control than me.
There is always other people which can be better than me and there is always another discipline to be invented to compete in.
So, there is no God, there is OTHER PEOPLE or "humanity". So a single premise is enough "I want to be better than others" which creates a never-ending desire which does not require "something more than time, earth and creatures" to satisfy it. It merely requires others and time, but truly it will never be satisfied as long as there are other people and time.
That's a correct analysis of our human state. It's not "God" that can satisfy this desire. There's no such function. It's a bottomless pit of desire, because there's countless other people and disciplines and objects to control. Having awareness of this desire rather than being blindly controlled by it is all a human can do to reduce his suffering from it and try and reach serenity rather than some kind of blissful ignorance advocated throughout the bible.
The purpose of this bottomless pit is to ensure that the individual/group/species never rest in further evolution, or they'll be wiped out by some other species which doesn't rest.
Your premises are wrong as they are purposefully crafted to provide a window for that ill conclusion which is also, even if we respect the premises, quite far-fetched.
Edited by addx, 13 August 2014 - 08:09 AM.
Posted 13 August 2014 - 08:48 AM
Addx I find your argument against the argument incoherent and it would be a waste of time to engage it. Ill let the readers decide if you said anything meaningful. You are not even addressing the argument.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
Premise 1 is incorrect. What is meant by "natural" and "innate" have not been defined. Also, I don't buy the argument that these desires "correspond" to real objects, and real objects only. Nothing is preventing imaginary objects, like gods, satisfying desires. Therefore, Premise 1 is hogwash.
Premise 2 is incorrect. Show me the proof that such an unsatisfiable desire even exists. Hogwash.
The conclusion is incorrect too, it is entirely possible for humans to have desires that cannot be satisfied by anything.
Seriously, does this bullcrap pass for "philosophy" in Xtian circles?? It must suck that all philisophical "proofs" of gods turn out to be the result of shoddy thinking. Caveat Emptor.
Posted 13 August 2014 - 07:36 PM
Addx I find your argument against the argument incoherent and it would be a waste of time to engage it. Ill let the readers decide if you said anything meaningful. You are not even addressing the argument.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.99% of readers have decided your arguments are meaningless
You ran a poll? Well all you have done is declare it is meaningless to you. That is evidence of nothing but a logical fallacy.
IS AN INFINITE REGRESS POSSIBLE???
Can you just shut up already? No one cares about your arguments and your dumb pictures.
You do.
Posted 13 August 2014 - 07:58 PM
addx: Ok, I'll try and make it simple for you.
I have a desire to be the best at everything others find important to be good at.
I have a desire to control everything others find important to control.
That's it.
You explained it quite well.
Posted 13 August 2014 - 08:49 PM
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire. It is real.
platypus: Premise 1 is incorrect. What is meant by "natural" and "innate" have not been defined. Also, I don't buy the argument that these desires "correspond" to real objects, and real objects only. Nothing is preventing imaginary objects, like gods, satisfying desires. Therefore, Premise 1 is hogwash.
Premise 2 is incorrect. Show me the proof that such an unsatisfiable desire even exists. Hogwash.
The conclusion is incorrect too, it is entirely possible for humans to have desires that cannot be satisfied by anything.
Posted 14 August 2014 - 02:19 PM
addx: Ok, I'll try and make it simple for you.
I have a desire to be the best at everything others find important to be good at.
I have a desire to control everything others find important to control.
That's it.
Wow that is simple!
1. There is a best at everything you can be good at that you desire. It is real.
2. Others really desire to control things and you really do also. What you desire is real!
What you desire is real.
-----------------------------------
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire. It is real.
"My desire" satisfies both premise 1, as it corresponds to real objects, but also 2 as nothing (real) can ever satisfy it even though it corresponds to real objects it's always needing more real objects and never being able to predict and set things so that you are free from this desire.
I become better than someone, than someone else becomes better than me and then I have to become better and then he has to become better and so on.
Notice how you keep evolving your arguments on this forum, you keep repeating the same things over and over again, learning where people will disprove you, finding more arguments to have over them, endlessly. -> That's "my desire" in effect and your denial of "my desire"(your god in fact) makes you into a puppet of this "desire" causing you to do this endlessly.
So your premises are just your bad introspection and selfdeceit.
Edited by addx, 14 August 2014 - 02:22 PM.
Posted 14 August 2014 - 03:47 PM
This thread exposes how desperate and threadbare the arguments for gods are.
If creator-of-the-universe gods actually existed that apparently wanted human belief, they wouldn't make themselves so invisible and so illogical. Gods really are about the dumbest idea modern humans can believe in.
Posted 14 August 2014 - 10:49 PM
addx: Ok, I'll try and make it simple for you.
I have a desire to be the best at everything others find important to be good at.
I have a desire to control everything others find important to control.
That's it.
Wow that is simple!
1. There is a best at everything you can be good at that you desire. It is real.
2. Others really desire to control things and you really do also. What you desire is real!
What you desire is real.
-----------------------------------
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire. It is real.
"My desire" satisfies both premise 1, as it corresponds to real objects, but also 2 as nothing (real) can ever satisfy it even though it corresponds to real objects it's always needing more real objects and never being able to predict and set things so that you are free from this desire.
I become better than someone, than someone else becomes better than me and then I have to become better and then he has to become better and so on.
Notice how you keep evolving your arguments on this forum, you keep repeating the same things over and over again, learning where people will disprove you, finding more arguments to have over them, endlessly. -> That's "my desire" in effect and your denial of "my desire"(your god in fact) makes you into a puppet of this "desire" causing you to do this endlessly.
So your premises are just your bad introspection and selfdeceit.
So you created a straw man and proceeded to knock it down declaring victory. You need to listen to the debate to see how this misses the issue entirely.
Posted 14 August 2014 - 11:22 PM
This thread exposes how desperate and threadbare the arguments for gods are.
If creator-of-the-universe gods actually existed that apparently wanted human belief, they wouldn't make themselves so invisible and so illogical. Gods really are about the dumbest idea modern humans can believe in.
First you provide no evidence but typically just call names. Talk about a threadbare argument.
You seem to claim you know what God should do. You even once proposed he should put a sign on the moon advertising that yes there was a god. That is the way you would do it.
The Christian God is both knowable and mystery, Kataphatic and Aphophatic. We have discussed this in section one. (See below)
If you fully knew God it would mean your so called "modern." brain was capable of such a task. Dumb idea. It would not be God!
APOPHATIC AND KATAPHATIC, negative and positive.
http://www.longecity...570#entry645162
http://www.longecity...570#entry645404
http://www.longecity...570#entry645484
http://www.longecity...570#entry645490
Posted 15 August 2014 - 05:25 AM
This thread exposes how desperate and threadbare the arguments for gods are.
If creator-of-the-universe gods actually existed that apparently wanted human belief, they wouldn't make themselves so invisible and so illogical. Gods really are about the dumbest idea modern humans can believe in.
First you provide no evidence but typically just call names. Talk about a threadbare argument.
You seem to claim you know what God should do. You even once proposed he should put a sign on the moon advertising that yes there was a god. That is the way you would do it.
The Christian God is both knowable and mystery, Kataphatic and Aphophatic. We have discussed this in section one. (See below)
If you fully knew God it would mean your so called "modern." brain was capable of such a task. Dumb idea. It would not be God!
APOPHATIC AND KATAPHATIC, negative and positive.
http://www.longecity...570#entry645162
http://www.longecity...570#entry645404
http://www.longecity...570#entry645484
http://www.longecity...570#entry645490
Edited by serp777, 15 August 2014 - 05:31 AM.
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
This topic is locked
