Question

[Freodin]

It took so much of your thinking to explain this "false dichotomy", even a well educated person needs to consider this argument carefully in order to understand. How can you call it a "nonsense"? If Christians can make this kind of "nonsense" and argue strongly for it, I would say the Christianity is very thoughtful and complicate philosophy.

Are you willing take the "nonsense" comment back?

I didn't even attempt to "explain" the false dichotomy. I didn't think this was neccessary. It is quite simple: it is presented as "either A or B. Not A, therefore B." That there might be other options beyond that isn't even considered.

Simple logic. Every intelligent person should see that. Hey, I can see it... and as I have been told, these people are not inferior in intelligence to me.

As for the second part, the argument about "nothing": you might have a point... IF Christians would be able to "argue strongly" for it. But they don't. They throw it into the debate, as if there was nothing to argue about, as if all questions were answered... and then, when the questions are raised, they ignore it and try to move on to the next argument. THAT is the nonsense.


And now, if I am allowed to ask, how is your wonderful scientific argument about God coming along?

 

[Freodin]

Human is not able to invent and facilitate the Christian God. (the reason is very simple, want to know that?)

Yes, I would love to know that!

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, I would love to know that!

Because established human theories can only be logical. Nobody would listen to and accept any illogical theory.
So, Christianity is not able to be invented by human.

 

[juvenissun]

And now, if I am allowed to ask, how is your wonderful scientific argument about God coming along?

What about God coming along?

 

[Freodin]

Because established human theories can only be logical. Nobody would listen to and accept any illogical theory.
So, Christianity is not able to be invented by human.

Sorry, I though you were being serious.

What about God coming along?

Your wonderful scientific argument about God that you asked me to consider. How is it comming along?

Well, scratch that! Up until your last post, I really thought you might be serious. But I fear my patience to put up with that nonsense is getting too thin.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I find it ridiculous when in one breath they describe a set of characteristics for a god they claim to have a personal relationship with...then in the next breath claim god is incomprehensible.

We can describe things only to the limit of human comprehension.

 

[popsthebuilder]

With nothing but stories to go on, and having to toss out virtually all of mainstream science for them to be true, I think it is fair to say that it never happened.

That's just not true. Faith in GOD doesn't refute sound scientific hypothesis.

 

[popsthebuilder]

In my view for something to be construed as that which is defined as god it would then be incumbent on that higher power to believe in me. It's giving my life praise, blessings, rewards, would then serve to prove that creator creates the example of its existence in some way that shows proof beyond what I can do for myself.
Whereas today's religions make that which they each identify as that higher power egoism and insecurity. That it must be worshiped , placated, obeyed, beseeched for a boon, while every aspect of our life occupies its time. And that part is what pertains to the egocentric nature of the human believer.
It's a contradiction to claim one is not worthy of that powers love, mercy, blessings, attention, and then follow a tradition that describes that believers life as being worthy of that higher powers complete focus as supervisor and punisher or that which gives reward, based on it observing that individuals life around the clock.

Why would a higher power need to be reassured of its station? Why shouldn't it believe in us when it is superior to us?
I see religion , all religious worship, as like unto expecting an ant to understand us. And then when it thinks it does lives its life to please us by its actions. In this way we'll let it live or we'll step on it to show our displeasure.

It does believe in us. Faith is reciprocal.

 

[quatona]

We can describe things only to the limit of human comprehension.

...and you have a relationship with something beyond the limit of your comprehension?

 

[popsthebuilder]

...and you have a relationship with something beyond the limit of your comprehension?

In ways, at times, parts and things I may fathom pertaining to GOD are indeed outside of my full understanding, yes.

 

[quatona]

In ways, at times, parts and things I may fathom pertaining to GOD are indeed outside of my full understanding, yes.

Well, then don´t expect me to understand you when you talk about stuff you yourself don´t comprehend.

 

[-57]

Could you give an example?

No problem. It's only 3 and a half mins long.

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry, I though you were being serious.


Your wonderful scientific argument about God that you asked me to consider. How is it comming along?

Well, scratch that! Up until your last post, I really thought you might be serious. But I fear my patience to put up with that nonsense is getting too thin.

Why am I not serious? Why should I not be serious? I am always serious on everything I said. What is wrong with anything I have said?
The only thing to consider is: whether you like to be as serious as I am.

You like to hear some scientific arguments in favor of my God? Are you serious? You told me that you are not that good in science. Alright, if it is what you like to hear, here is a simple one:

God uses (discloses) some scientific information in the teaching to His people at 4000 years ago. Those sciences are only confirmed to be literally true in the recent decades. And, the most wonderful thing is, God have told those scientifically primitive people about this big delay.

Is it a good one? The details would be scientifically heavy. My advice to you is to stick with those non-scientific arguments, like the one you accused me not being serious about. Of course, if you like to learn, I can give you one example of them. It won't be any nonsense as you imagined.

 

[SteveB28]

Human is not able to invent and facilitate the Christian God. (the reason is very simple, want to know that?)

Nonsense. Man has been inventing gods ever since he swung down out of the trees. All of them are products of the imagination, including yours.

 

[juvenissun]

We can describe things only to the limit of human comprehension.

Sorry to wedge in here. I don't know what religion you believe. As long as it is not Christianity, I think all other religions said things that human do can accept by reasoning. So, if one criticized that human invented religion, you can not defend it.

 

[juvenissun]

Nonsense. Man has been inventing gods ever since he swung down out of the trees. All of them are products of the imagination, including yours.

Everyone can imagine. But none of those unreasonable imaginations get developed into theology.

 

[SteveB28]

Everyone can imagine. But none of those unreasonable imaginations get developed into theology.

All of them have. There is nothing unique about yours.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No problem. It's only 3 and a half mins long.

Well there's 3.5 mins I'll never get back...

At no point in the video did it describe any intelligence. It simply showed the process of cell replication.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Sorry to wedge in here. I don't know what religion you believe. As long as it is not Christianity, I think all other religions said things that human do can accept by reasoning. So, if one criticized that human invented religion, you can not defend it.

I don't think I understand what you were trying I say.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Well, then don´t expect me to understand you when you talk about stuff you yourself don´t comprehend.

I wouldn't.