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 guess I´m a believer in honest discussion - where people who (without being aware) came up with a request to argue against the ill-defined will admit "Yes, this was a stupid idea" once shown that the requirements for this task have been met by the claimers.Sorry quatona...
What were you hoping for though? A brilliant explanation of the "greatest conceivable being"? You knew you weren't going to even see a bare bones explanation of the concept...
I guess I´m a believer in honest discussion - where people who (without being aware) came up with a request to argue against the ill-defined
will admit "Yes, this was a stupid idea" once shown that the requirements for this task have been met by the claimers.
Or where people who claim that there can be arguments against God´s existence without there being preceeding arguments for it to which they refer will retract such statements once shown to be wrong.
I´m somewhat naive like that.
I wasn´t talking to you.I assume you are referencing my thread entitled Philosophical arguments against the existence of God.
Am I right?
If so, it is not people, but a person, namely anonymous person.
If so, this would also mean that you affirm that the phrase existence of God is ill-defined.
Please tell me what the phrase ill-defined signifies and why you affirm that the phrase existence of God is such.
I also want you to ask the atheists who responded to my thread by actually presenting arguments against the existence of God instead of claiming the phrase was ill-defined, why/how they don't think the phrase is ill-defined. It is my hope that they may be able to shed some light on this and that you might actually accept it, and have some answers to your questions.
This statement is nonsensical to me. I think you might need to rephrase it.
This statement to is nonsensical. I cannot make heads or tails of it. Maybe you could rephrase it.
I guess I´m a believer in honest discussion - where people who (without being aware) came up with a request to argue against the ill-defined will admit "Yes, this was a stupid idea" once shown that the requirements for this task have been met by the claimers.
Or where people who claim that there can be arguments against God´s existence without there being preceeding arguments for it to which they refer will retract such statements once shown to be wrong.
I´m somewhat naive like that.
I assume you are referencing my thread entitled Philosophical arguments against the existence of God.
Am I right?
If so, it is not people, but a person, namely anonymous person.
If so, this would also mean that you affirm that the phrase existence of God is ill-defined.
Please tell me what the phrase ill-defined signifies and why you affirm that the phrase existence of God is such.
I also want you to ask the atheists who responded to my thread by actually presenting arguments against the existence of God instead of claiming the phrase was ill-defined, why/how they don't think the phrase is ill-defined. It is my hope that they may be able to shed some light on this and that you might actually accept it, and have some answers to your questions.
Words can't do either concept justice. Jesus Himself often times used symbols and vivid imagery to convey into understandable terms, spiritual realities.You know....ill-defined...like that description of heaven and hell that you gave me and ignored my response to.
I don´t know that Jesus asked anyone to present arguments against God´s existence, in the first place.Words can't do either concept justice. Jesus Himself often times used symbols and vivid imagery to convey into understandable terms, spiritual realities.
And I could say that I find "well unrealistic" to be, well, unrealistic.I still find "greatest" to be well unrealistic. Like saying the highest number.
Well, if someone came to me asking me to present an argument against the existence of the "greatest conceivable piece of music" I would see the very same problems.And I could say that I find "well unrealistic" to be, well, unrealistic.
Whatever that would mean.
Everyone here knows what the word "greatest" means. We use the words great, greater, and greatest on a regular basis. Good, better, and best, bad, worse, worst etc. Etc. are all words we use regularly and never call into question what they mean.
Sometimes the words can be used to express opinions, sometimes they can be used to express a fact.
Only when it comes to the discussion of God do people all of a sudden act like the aforementioned words are unfit for use.
I don´t know that Jesus asked anyone to present arguments against God´s existence, in the first place.
Words can't do either concept justice. Jesus Himself often times used symbols and vivid imagery to convey into understandable terms, spiritual realities.
Frankly, I'm not in the least bit compelled to attempt to define heaven or hell for you anymore than I have already.
Whole books and volumes of literature have been written on the subject.
If you want to know how I define them, just read the New Testament.
And I could say that I find "well unrealistic" to be, well, unrealistic.
Whatever that would mean.
Everyone here knows what the word "greatest" means. We use the words great, greater, and greatest on a regular basis. Good, better, and best, bad, worse, worst etc. Etc. are all words we use regularly and never call into question what they mean.
Sometimes the words can be used to express opinions, sometimes they can be used to express a fact.
Only when it comes to the discussion of God do people all of a sudden act like the aforementioned words are unfit for use.
And I could say that I find "well unrealistic" to be, well, unrealistic.
Whatever that would mean.
Everyone here knows what the word "greatest" means. We use the words great, greater, and greatest on a regular basis. Good, better, and best, bad, worse, worst etc. Etc. are all words we use regularly and never call into question what they mean.
Sometimes the words can be used to express opinions, sometimes they can be used to express a fact.
Only when it comes to the discussion of God do people all of a sudden act like the aforementioned words are unfit for use.
Well, if someone came to me asking me to present an argument against the existence of the "greatest conceivable piece of music" I would see the very same problems.
I've read it...it's a bit lacking on the matter.
"Words can't do either concept justice."...if that's how you feel I'll just consider your question meaningless then. It's a bit pointless to ask someone to choose between two concepts that you yourself cannot explain.
Incorrect. We see that those words are unfit to use in any situation where objectivity is required.
The words can refer to opinions. They can be used to convey facts too.That's because they would seem to refer to opinions.
4'33" by John Cage, obviously...
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?