Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
I think you're confused: the problem is that your posts are barely intelligible. You think you're saying something deep, but you aren't even saying something shallow.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think you're confused: the problem is that your posts are barely intelligible. You think you're saying something deep, but you aren't even saying something shallow.It helps to put on your thinking cap when reading my posts
If you're unwilling to really think about what I'm saying for fear of figuring out you're actually wrong then that's your problem.
I'm not stating my assumptions, I'm stating my beliefs and I'm explaining the knowledge I've gained from my beliefs about reality. You have a belief that reality was not created by God, I have a belief that reality was created by God. This is really the only difference between yours and my beliefs.
So I'm justified in saying the exact same thing back at you: The fact that you don't like the consequences of your assumption that God did not create reality being wrong doesn't make it correct.
The only difference between my logic and your logic is that your logic
science will never be able to provide physical evidence for the reason for existence.
So logically the theory that makes the most sense should be the theory we all believe in, do you agree?
Not only does the concept of an infinite timeless God make sense, the concept of God has been around ever since humans came into existence.
If an infinite timeless God exists then logically existence is all you'll ever experience
Sure science can come up with more theories about existence, but I'm going to continue believing the one that makes the most sense and has been around since forever, simply because this is reasonable for me to do.
I don't share your view so no, I don't have to follow a lot of religions.
Take it as:
Google "responses to Bart Ehrman".
Thanks.
I think you're confused: the problem is that your posts are barely intelligible. You think you're saying something deep, but you aren't even saying something shallow.
The only difference? You sure know a lot about me for never having met me. If you're really such an accomplished mind-reader you need to get off of this forum and put your superpowers to good use.
Since I never said this was the reason I lack belief, who cares?
Is this a deliberate attempt at irony? How many of my questions have you ignored?Well, when you ignore my questions it makes it easier for you to assume I'm being unintelligible.
Proof of this claim?
What "theory" is that?
Yep, just not the god concept you're hung up on. If you're going to go with the argument that older is better, you're going to have to convert. If you don't take your own argument seriously enough to follow it through, that just shows how empty it really is.
Same as if an infinite timeless god didn't exist. So gods don't add anything to the mix.
Is this a deliberate attempt at irony? How many of my questions have you ignored?
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about whether you are open to be convinced. You repeatedly dodged my request that you substantiate the claim that your god concept "makes sense" of the universe's existence.Which questions have I ignored?
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about whether you are open to be convinced. You repeatedly dodged my request that you substantiate the claim that your god concept "makes sense" of the universe's existence.
The only reason you lack belief is because you lack physical evidence
Please. When you have to resort to making stuff up like this to support your faith you're on really shaky ground. You might want to step back a bit and think about this before continuing to offer false witness here in a public forum.
Read my post #509
Reread my post #509
Reread my post #509
but when you consider truth as being unalterable by finite beings then this would mean its unalterably true that we exist so how could it ever be altered to us not existing when we die?
Sorry, I don't want to miss-represent your position. Isn't it true that you're an atheist because there is no physical evidence for God
So you claim that because the universe isn't static that truth doesn't exist? To say that makes no sense would be giving it more weight than it deserves. If you think you're saying anything there that's a real problem. One that I don't think I can help with.
By static do you mean eternal? I already explained my reasoning for my belief that the universe is finite, in that it has a beginning but possibly no end. Therefore, it would be unalterably true that something caused it to begin.
But you haven't presented anything to support your reasoning. Nothing. You've just piled assertions upon assertions and then said "disprove this!"I already answered this question back at post #239. The fact is, if I have good reason to believe what I believe and you want to convince me I'm wrong, its then up to you to show me why my reasoning is wrong and you have yet to do this, which is exactly why I'm not convinced that you're right and I'm wrong.
But by your logic, not unalterably true that it exists since at some point it didn't. You're obviously missing the fact that certain facts include time or space constraints on them. That doesn't make them untrue, it just means that whatever definition of true you're using doesn't agree with how it is actually used by the vast majority of people.
In other words, you're playing pointless word games.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?