Discussion in 'Religion' started by Willamina Tyndale, Nov 6, 2017.
Education perhaps ?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
A Roman named Brian Bigerdickus,
Dave, just a note aside: In other discussions, including one we've been having recently, I might make a point about who we let set the terms of which argument.
Please remember this thread, when I do, and the fact of your response.
Name one modern device invented by Jesus or any of the gods.
Who invented medical science?
Who invented computers?
Who invented the internal combustion engine ?
Who invented the Saturn 5 rocket ?
Humans, that's who.
We are better than any gods.
Interesting, but not very clear. Is it a warning?
That's Wong on so many levels.
Sadly, we're no better behaved.
Maybe not your business? Yeah, probably not your business.
Oh, hey, look: I answered your question.
You should try it sometime↗.
It would probably help people understand what you're on about if you were at least capable of showing that you have a clue.
Seriously, anyone can write insensate one-liners and posture cheap sloganeering.
I was only asking sir.
Please forgive my insolence.
I will obey.
If God. God Is.
Why couldn't God be necessary?
That makes no sense.
That's a Proving a Negative fallacy. Properly, "Why could God be necessary?"
And he wouldn't be.
In what sense?
IOW, you don't know that the wheel was invented.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You're really going there?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"If", introducing a conditional clause, on the condition, or supposition that, in the event that.
God necessarily exists.
Not that God exists, like pots and pans.
Then don't make claims, if you can't account for them.
It doesn't matter whether they are positive or negative.
If Jan means "If God, then God Is" then actually it does make sense.
What it means is that, IF God were to be manifest in whatever form God manifests, then God Is... because God is defined (per Jan) along the lines of "He who Is".
So basically he's saying that if God Is then God Is.
God could be necessary simply by fulfilling two criteria:
1. By being defined as being necessary
2. By actually being objectively real
Oh, He could be.
There's just doesn't seem to be any way to logically confirm that He is, or isn't (necessary, rather than Is or Isn't).
As the soundness of the conclusion (of necessity) depends upon the soundness of the premises - which noone has yet proven all to be true.
Sometimes I think the Walrus and the Carpenter have accounts here.
#redlight | #nightstand
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Click because they're all bloody crazy.
In a way. It's extraneous and therefore limiting; "If God", technically speaking, is irrelevant.
Remember that for the most part, that is to say, generally speaking pretty much always, pretty much everyone is arguing about erroneous presuppositions.
• Theologically, "God" is an unresolved value. "God" is also an unresolved question.
▸ Not so much for the sake of argument, but, rather, because that's pretty much how it goes, people have essentially decided that God is [2 + 2].
▸ There is a problem, of course, when prevailing faith says two plus two equals three.
▸ There is also a problem when those who demand that the prevailing faith is wrong are also wrong; two plus two does not equal ninety-seven. Strangely, a third bloc associated with and utterly unopposed to that latter manages to miss the point altogether by withholding proposed resolutions.
▸ That third bloc would otherwise be onto something, but here's the problem: Of all the times under the sun the second and third blocs would refuse to be confined to two plus two, why are they okay with it this time?
↳ Because they don't actually give a flying phuck what two plus two equals; the point has nothing to do with the answer, and everything to do with complaining about the prevailing faith.
Watch closely; this thread starts with raw excrement, and progresses as an exhibition of not-quite fine sculpture of not-quite refined excrement.
Your formulation is very interesting:
By the time we can affirm that God "exists", it's useless. The name of God, as such, if not God Itself, will be spelled out in some manner of mathematical notation.
Looking back to our topic post, we might wonder—
—what the "beginning" of infinity ... uh ... "looks like"? I mean, it is easy enough to think in terms of, "What if I count to infinity?" or some such, but there is no [let n=0]; infinity is infinity.
And that's the thing about these little shoebox godlings; the answer is virtually always going to refuse their existence; two plus two simply does not equal three, and any candidate for one of these characters in a bedtime story—(what, they put the holy books in nightstands?)—only reminds why we kill the Buddha.
(To the one, the first life we encounter out there will be spectacular if it achieves, say, Bacillus astra titania, but a Reticulan prince on holiday it ain't; to the other, a Reticulan prince would still be a Reticulan prince, so, no, B. astra does not prove God exists, and by the time we achieve proof of a Reticulan prince we can also answer the question of whether assholes are capable of proper function in space.)
The universe is neither created nor destroyed, or unless it was destroyed (alpha) then created (omega). The creation-destruction phoenix.
Not really sure I follow.
I am asking in good faith what the OP's argument is. It is meant neither sarcastically nor facetiously.
And I'm not really sure to what other argument you refer, but I'll keep watch (maybe I just haven't read it yet).
Aye. We'll get 'round to it.
But, yes, I would ask, suggest, or otherwise encourage you to take a moment to consider what you're trying to figure out.
To wit, were you actually, or, you know, even figuratively, beating your head against the wall, and I asked why, and you said, "I'm trying to figure [this] out," I would be suggesting you take another look at whatever [this] is.
I don't doubt you're asking in good faith; that's not my point. I simply mean it will be useful at some point in the future to refer back to this thread and your inquiry.
It's one of those weird bits; whenever I recall that time when, nobody else remembers, and in all this time I've never found a good formulation for telling someone to mark the time. People are really, really suspicious of one another in these virtual communities. Like our neighbor; his inquiry now makes the whole thing seem larger than it needs to be, but only if we let it.
Separate names with a comma.