05 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf infinity is accepted as "unbound space," I'd say it's fair to describe infinity as beginning where 'bound (known boundary) space' ends.
[b]You still have made a mess of the second definition. Infinite does not "begin" anywhere.
If infinity is accepted as "unbound space," I'd say it's fair to describe infinity as beginning where 'bound (known boundary) space' ends. That's, like, the idea, dude. If you could propel yourself to the edge of the universe, you could then look out into in ...[text shortened]... ell, you've wasted enough of my time today.[/b]
How does that make you feel?[/b]
So technically the space you decribe has a bound. Ok, whatever . . . your god exists even in the parts of the universe that we do not know. Fine.
Well, you've wasted enough of my time today.
And here I am back at it this morning. (I'm a sucker for monkeys 😛 )
Bad chimp! Bad chimp!
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are qualified to dismiss the authority of the Bible?
[b]ad verecundiam.
A misleading authority? Rich. You are qualified to dismiss the authority of the Bible? Whichever voice in your head that coughed out that bit of information needs to see a doctor. Leave the rest of them alone, though: they may be even more dangerous.
BTW, you may want to check out the definition of circular reasoning/argument, in case the term actually applies to a future discussion you have on any topic.[/b]
Yes. I'm not sure at which fantasy-land the rector from your seminary school dropped you off, but here in the real world the existence of your "god" is dubious at best. However, you're free to use your a priori methods to reach whatever conclusion matches the green sky, flying pigs and giant lollipop trees in your world. As long as you're happy.
BTW, you may want to check out the definition of circular reasoning/argument, in case the term actually applies to a future discussion you have on any topic.
I'm good, thanks. You might want to re-examine just about every argument there is for the "authority" of the bible, since we're on the topic:
You: "The bible is the authoritative word of god!"
Me: "How do you know?"
You: "It says so! Chapter 8 verse 50!"
Me: "OK."
You'll forgive me if I ask you to spare the usual ad populums that inevitably follow.
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOriginally posted by FreakyKBH
Must be the secret de-coder ring conspiracy, again. Perhaps, in your intelligence, you would be the first to step foward and point out the logical fallacy in any one of the posts relative to the attributes of God? Perhaps you can reveal the self-contradictions?
When challenged to show the logic gaps in the presentation...
no response.
Are you daft? First, demonstrate your god exists. Until then, this is nothing more than eisegesis on the ethical properties of Tolkien's Hobbits. It is "relevant" only to those who choose to believe they exist. You want to present this thread as some sort of challenge to the non-theist, and when he responds that it is pointless drivel...you proclaim some type of victory. Gaps in logic? Yes, you are.
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by David CAre you daft?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]When challenged to show the logic gaps in the presentation...
no response.
Are you daft? First, demonstrate your god exists. Until then, this is nothing more than eisegesis on the ethical properties of Tolkien's Hobbits. It is "relevant" only to those who choose to believe they exist. You want to present this ...[text shortened]... that it is pointless drivel...you proclaim some type of victory. Gaps in logic? Yes, you are.[/b]
Too bad Darwin never had you to pick him apart on his lack of evidence.
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by David CYou are qualified to dismiss the authority of the Bible?
Yes.[/b]
Based on your authorizing of yourself, no doubt.
You: "The bible is the authoritative word of god!"
Me: "How do you know?"
You: "It says so! Chapter 8 verse 50!"
Me: "OK."
Must have been absent from your head that day. Are you certain it wasn't one of the other voices in there?
You'll forgive me if I ask you to spare the usual ad populums that inevitably follow.
Wasn't even going to try that route. Otherwise, you'd have grounds for your argument, as well.
Sorry, David, but as this thread is dedicated to the attributes of God, like the other post dedicated to theological discussion, "Who give(s) human life?" God's existence is an assumed, and therefore not the point of contention. Should you have a contention with the posts relative to the essence of God, I'd be glad to hear of it.
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes.
[b]You are qualified to dismiss the authority of the Bible?
Yes.[/b]
Based on your authorizing of yourself, no doubt.
You: "The bible is the authoritative word of god!"
Me: "How do you know?"
You: "It says so! Chapter 8 verse 50!"
Me: "OK."
Must have been absent from your head that day. Are you certain it wasn't one of the other voic ...[text shortened]... ention with the posts relative to the essence of God, I'd be glad to hear of it.[/b]
Based on your authorizing of yourself, no doubt.
Surely you are not denying his free will and agency? He has the authority to reject whatever wishes. There may be consequences for rejecting it, but he has the authority all the same.
Sorry, David, but as this thread is dedicated to the attributes of God, like the other post dedicated to theological discussion, "Who give(s) human life?" God's existence is an assumed, and therefore not the point of contention. Should you have a contention with the posts relative to the essence of God, I'd be glad to hear of it.
You know, God doesn't need to exist to discuss his attributes. We might discuss Glorfindel for example (and why he is always left out of motion pictures) without assuming that Glorfindel is a real person.
Therefore, go ahead and keep the posts coming. Just don't expect us to think more of it then any other fiction.
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by telerionSurely you are not denying his free will and agency? He has the authority to reject whatever wishes. There may be consequences for rejecting it, but he has the authority all the same.
Just don't expect us to think more of it then any other fiction.
Yes, I recognize his free will. However, if he is to reject the Bible's authority, I will challenge him to give reasons for doing so... only not in this thread; we'll have to start another for that topic (again).
You know, God doesn't need to exist to discuss his attributes.
True, it could all be a bunch of fiction. However, based on my observations and study, as well as based on the conclusions of those in possession of much greater intelligence, I feel pretty confident that He does exist.
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI could have sworn by the beard of Merciful Allah's Prophet that you said you weren't going to "go that route" not two posts ago.
as well as based on the conclusions of those in possession of much greater intelligence, I feel pretty confident that He does exist.
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo the truth of the Bible should not be supported by appeals to more intelligent people.
If we were to debate the veracity of Scripture, I surely wouldn't go that route. But, as we're not...
On the otherhand, the existence of the very person assumed to be the author of the Bible can be supported by the same argument?
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDon't forget the attribute that he loves Copy'n'Paste jobs!
Posted within these threads previously, this thread will attempt to delineate the attributes of God in an outline fashion. This does not address the absolute essence of His being, nor attempt to address the same. His existence is here assumed. Scripture is the only source of revelation regarding His essence, which, in and of itself, does not exclude fur ...[text shortened]... Omnipotence
Immutability Veracity
First up, sovereignty.
05 Mar 06
Originally posted by HalitoseYou can bet as scientists we would have tried to pick him apart. People try it with my science all the time. It's good. It makes the theory stronger. You guys attack it, and all the time you're just making the case for evolution stonger, not weaker. That must REALLY gall.
[b]Are you daft?
Too bad Darwin never had you to pick him apart on his lack of evidence.[/b]