What is rational about that? Why lie? Why did you switch to “ unicorns”? Do you think you could at least pretend to act rationally, by remaining on topic? What kind of “things” are you talking about? You’re being irrational. Calm down, take a deep breath, then try and remain in topic. Do you think you can do that! No it’s not. You are irrational. The difference between us is that, I’m not in denial. Why do you reject and deny God, now that we know the evidence song is just a diversion? Irrrrrrrrrrrrrational!!! I don’t reject unicorns, and neither do you. But you deny and reject God. Why? Irrrrrrrrrational!!! Jan.
Whose God? Who shall we pick from the thousand existing Gods? Oh yes it does, because that has been proven, despite your hysterical protestations. Desire and Ability are evolved results of "natural movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction". Unfortunately you believe that this universal imperative is the expressed desire and ability of some undefined entity which started from nothing. See, I can use your argument against itself, but you cannot use my argument against itself. There is abundant evidence on my side, none on yours. God IS, God ALWAYS existed, and God is INFINITE, are hopeless expressions of wishful thinking, without a shred of evidence, logic, or reason to support such a claim. Do you clain that God is a universal constant? Proof will be required, you do realize that?
Science is evidence-based. Where's the evidence? Okay, so Jan believes in unicorns. And God. Jan's hoisted himself on his own petard. He has been claiming that atheists reject God - and by that that they don't believe God exists. So, by his own use of "reject", either 1] Jan believes in unicorns in the same way he believes in God: That unicorns really exist. or 2] he simply means he believe in unicorns as a concept. Which is what we've been saying about God all along. There is no better way for an argument to be dismantled that for the arguer to contradict himself. A final observation: It is astonishing how often Jan reveals his own emotional state by projecting it onto others. Here, he projects his own emotionally frenzied state: on to others: That's six exclamation marks, and a lot of yelling. (Notice Jan, that I don't make unfounded assertions. They are founded in your own words. The only way you can deny them is if you deny your own words.)
I embrace reason, you reject it. I'm open to evidence of this thing you're talking about, so get some. I can ask lots of things about theoretical entities, that is a mark of intellectual maturity. Don't presume to know what's in my mind. Then why do various religions define god differently? And some don't include the concept at all? Who's in denial now? Even the Bible acknowledges other god concepts.
What do you mean by “Whose God”? You mean “thousands of existing god’s”. I don’t think it’s wor No it hasn’t. Stop lying! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No I don’t. God isn’t “undefined”. God just I No you can’t. You Don’t you think something (for want of a better expression) always just is? Can you or anyone imagine and explain absolute nothingness? Jan.
Evidence presupposes truth. God I Stop lying! Why do you lie so much? Think about it Sherlock. If you reject God, it means you refuse to accept God. Eventually you can come to believe the reasons you choose to accept God. That’s where the belief ends. The Belief blue states that the fool doth say in his heart (subconscious), there is no God. Not that the fool doth not “believe in God”. Dave Whose been saying all along? Folk who convince themselves there is no God. Talk about zero credibility! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! jan.
You don’t embrace reason. You work on sounding like you embrace reason. But on the subject matter of God, you are totally unreasonable. So, intellectual maturity is the cause of curiosity? Well that’s a new one. ??? Certainly not me. So what? God creates gods to do stuff. What’s your point! Jan.
Then give me a reason to believe it! No, it's intellectually mature to do thought experiments where one assumes certain premises for the purposes of argument. Faith is fake knowledge. Evidence is reason to think something may likely be true. The truth of things lies in their demonstrability, or usefulness. I'm hearing hints of presuppositionalism, which is laughable nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Presuppositionalism
It doesn’t work like that. You’re better off staying where you are. That’s not what you said. Asking a lot of things about theoretical entities, is neither necessarily intellectually mature, or akin to thought experiments. And your response does nothing to address my point. It’s just asking questions about theoretical entities You don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t know what faith is, especially seeing as how you have lots of it. It’s kind of pathetic how you are controlled by labels and genres. As far as you are concerned , if something is associated with a certain label, or genre, that has been assassinated by by lefty-type thinking, you feel comfortable enough to go with it, without studying it’s content. That, to me, is a sign of someone who is brainwashed. Jan.
Jesus, everybody back off. We're losin' him! Somebody call a bondulance. I think Jan is having a stronk. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Aw! Poor you. You have to resort to my dodgy phone to try to regain some form of credibility. I wish I could feel how you intend me to feel, just to help you get one over on me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Jan
Your phone made you type Irrrrrrrrrrrrrational!!! Irrrrrrrrrational!!! and God is the Absolute Truth??