Spirituality
11 Feb 18
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by @dj2beckerIt can be proof of non-existence depending on the propositions. If one of them is "If (and only if) X exists it would be seen" then the conclusion that X does not exis,t because if is not seen, would be logically valid.
Point is not seeing is not proof of non-existence.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
12 Feb 18
Originally posted by @js357God is a Spirit but He was seen when He came to earth in bodily form some 2,000 years ago.
It can be proof of non-existence depending on the propositions. If one of them is "If (and only if) X exists it would be seen" then the conclusion that X does not exis,t because if is not seen, would be logically valid.
12 Feb 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Not addressed to you.
But a deity (i.e. God) has been seen.
Worth noting is that God’s existence is not dependent upon anyone believing in Him; if everyone in the world were an atheist, God would still exist.
Nor is God’s character defined by human beings.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @romans1009Don't worry about who was addressed and who wasn't. I benefited from the truth being written. Others did I too, I think.
God is a Spirit but He was seen when He came to earth in bodily form some 2,000 years ago.
12 Feb 18
Originally posted by @sonshipHow is me not wanting to communicate directly with him any different from you not wanting to communicate with Rajk?
Don't worry about who was addressed and who wasn't. I benefited from the [b]truth being written. Others did I think too.[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
12 Feb 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI don't get some of you guys. I really don't.
How is me not wanting to communicate directly with him any different from you not wanting to communicate with Rajk?
All you should care about is the TRUTH !
Let everyone be a fink as long as you get what is TRUE.
12 Feb 18
Originally posted by @sonshipI think Rajk posts the truth.
I don't get some of you guys. I really don't.
All you should care about is the [b]TRUTH !
Let everyone be a fink as long as you get what is TRUE.[/b]
You cool with that?
12 Feb 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @romans1009That's your belief. The OP-title refers to apathist not seeing gods; it makes no reference to whether the God you know as Yahweh exists or does not exist or the specifically Christian belief that God was incarnated in bodily form about 2,000 years ago.
But a deity (i.e. God) has been seen.
Worth noting is that God’s existence is not dependent upon anyone believing in Him; if everyone in the world were an atheist, God would still exist.
Nor is God’s character defined by human beings.
....
God is a Spirit but He was seen when He came to earth in bodily form some 2,000 years ago.
Apathist says he does not see gods. There is no contesting that statement. It's not a statement about God; it's a statement about what he sees or does not see. One might as well contest the statement that he does not see Mt. Everest or does not have a belly ache. It is no rebuttal to say, "But Everest really exists and is not defined by human beings" or "belly aches really exist."
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
12 Feb 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeAnd...?
Not addressed to you.
You’ve got your panties in a twist ‘cause I offered an answer to a question addressed to someone else?
What a delicate little buttercup you are!
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
12 Feb 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYou seem to have no problem communicating with me on other threads, trollmaster.
How is me not wanting to communicate directly with him any different from you not wanting to communicate with Rajk?
Got the cramps from Aunt Flo visiting?
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
12 Feb 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeAn atheist thinks rajk posts the truth. Yeah, that makes sense.
I think Rajk posts the truth.
You cool with that?
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
12 Feb 18
Originally posted by @moonbusI’d hate to think the OP is that limited. What’s the point, then?
That's your belief. The OP-title refers to apathist not seeing gods; it makes no reference to whether the God you know as Yahweh exists or does not exist or the specifically Christian belief that God was incarnated in bodily form about 2,000 years ago.
Apathist says he does not see gods. There is no contesting that statement. It's not a statement about G ...[text shortened]... y, "But Everest really exists and is not defined by human beings" or "belly aches really exist."
12 Feb 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Your answer was a nonsense.
And...?
You’ve got your panties in a twist ‘cause I offered an answer to a question addressed to someone else?
What a delicate little buttercup you are!
Firstly you say that 'a deity (i.e. God) has been seen,' even though I was giving the example of an individual who had 'not' seen God. (You know, with his own eyes). Then you reason (poorly) that it is 'worth noting God’s existence is not dependent upon anyone believing in Him; if everyone in the world were an atheist, God would still exist.' - In truth, it wasn't worth noting that at all. Why is it not possible that everyone in the world was an atheist with good cause and that God 'doesn't exist?!
Why would God still exist?! Because a numpty like you says so?
And finally, you offer the gem 'nor is God’s character defined by human beings' when you know you are responding to an atheist who believes God's character is not only defined by human beings, He was invented by them.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeBelieve it or not, my post was addressed to a broader audience than you.
Your answer was a nonsense.
Firstly you say that 'a deity (i.e. God) has been seen,' even though I was giving the example of an individual who had 'not' seen God. (You know, with his own eyes). Then you reason (poorly) that it is 'worth noting God’s existence is not dependent upon anyone believing in Him; if everyone in the world were an atheist ...[text shortened]... heist who believes God's character is not only defined by human beings, He was invented by them.
I understand why you have trouble comprehending it, though. Your second paragraph in particular was an illogical word salad.