- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHJust out of curiosity, Freaky, what conferred you such authority on this subject? You demand that the sceptic disprove you assertions, yet all you are doing is pontificating. The sceptic might not be able to disprove your argument, but you are having difficulty proving it yourself.
With respect to the attributes of God, no one has been able to demonstrate any logical fallacies, absurdities or gaps in logic therein.
I'm beginning to think the sceptics really should just call themselves scoffers. Not one of you have yet argued the specifics of the issues. Complaints are made, relative to the 'if God is this, then how come that' va ...[text shortened]... l any of its opponents be able to claim that it wasn't made 'clear enough' for them.
Here are the attributes of God, that you now as the sceptic can refute (or can you?):
Indifference
Life in general
Finite presence
Corporeal restriction
Constant transmutation
Mendacity
If you prove any logical absurdities and inconsistencies, then these must be the attributes of God.
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by Conrau KJust out of curiosity, Freaky, what conferred you such authority on this subject?
Absolutely no one. Have you a better supported argument? Then answer the charge.
You demand that the sceptic disprove you assertions, yet all you are doing is pontificating.
Pontificating? Expose my source as fallocious, or any in any other way in error, and you can use the term. Otherwise, your charge is as empty as any of your other 'challenges.'
If you prove any logical absurdities and inconsistencies, then these must be the attributes of God.
I've put mine forth. Answer the challenge, and I'll take yours up swiftly. As you cannot, you shouldn't be expecting a response from me any time in the next millennium (or two).
13 Mar 06
If you prove any logical absurdities and inconsistencies, then these must be the attributes of God.
I've put mine forth. Answer the challenge, and I'll take yours up swiftly. As you cannot, you shouldn't be expecting a response from me any time in the next millennium (or two).[/b]
Con makes a good point. Looks like you're posturing to me, Freaky.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHExpose your source as fallacious?
[b]Just out of curiosity, Freaky, what conferred you such authority on this subject?
Absolutely no one. Have you a better supported argument? Then answer the charge.
You demand that the sceptic disprove you assertions, yet all you are doing is pontificating.
Pontificating? Expose my source as fallocious, or any in any other way in error, ...[text shortened]... ot, you shouldn't be expecting a response from me any time in the next millennium (or two).[/b]
I just asked you to do the same thing!
These posts wouldn't be very interesting if people expounded their doctrines without any justification. Your putting forth an argument without any arguing and saying that because we can't argue against your argument, then your argument is correct.
If you can say why God is sovereign to begin with then i'll listen.
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by telerionCan you not read, or are you purposely being dense? Your words sound authoritative, what with 'posturing' and 'good point,' and all, but they boil down to the same cr@p offered by him. Because you cannot answer the assertion put forth, I must answer yours? Pound sand.
[b]If you prove any logical absurdities and inconsistencies, then these must be the attributes of God.
I've put mine forth. Answer the challenge, and I'll take yours up swiftly. As you cannot, you shouldn't be expecting a response from me any time in the next millennium (or two).[/b]
Con makes a good point. Looks like you're posturing to me, Freaky.[/b]
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by Freakishonly a God who is scared would be omnipresent. it would take a really powerful God to make things outside of himself that are bigger. and does not God resides thou in heaven. " our father who art in heaven" And if god was omnipresent, then that would make him an accomplice to all the crimes committed
With respect to the attributes of God, no one has been able to demonstrate any logical fallacies, absurdities or gaps in logic therein.
I'm beginning to think the sceptics really should just call themselves scoffers. Not one of you have yet argued the specifics of the issues. Complaints are made, relative to the 'if God is this, then how come that' var ...[text shortened]... l any of its opponents be able to claim that it wasn't made 'clear enough' for them.
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat a Craigian pantload your posts are. The 'absurdity', boy, is that first you postualte that god is real (a 'given', I think you stated), and then you proceed to utilize the only source you have for this assertion to expound on his 'attributes'. You challenge the non-theist to point out the 'logical fallacies' in a dissertation on the nature of a Magical Elf gleaned from the Magic Elf Handbook? Forget it. Stick to proselytizing to your usual crowd. They're probably just getting out of kindergarten about now.
With respect to the attributes of God, no one has been able to demonstrate any logical fallacies, absurdities or gaps in logic therein.
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by David CWell said.
What a Craigian pantload your posts are. The 'absurdity', boy, is that first you postualte that god is real (a 'given', I think you stated), and then you proceed to utilize the only source you have for this assertion to expound on his 'attributes'. You challenge the non-theist to point out the 'logical fallacies' in a dissertation on the nature of a Magical ...[text shortened]... izing to your usual crowd. They're probably just getting out of kindergarten about now.
----------------------------------------
'Craigian pantload' 🙂
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWe have answered your assertion, repeatedly. We've said it in a whole bunch of original ways (The Lord of the Rings, Linear Algebra, Mental Pocket Pool), you clearly just don't understand the point.
Can you not read, or are you purposely being dense? Your words sound authoritative, what with 'posturing' and 'good point,' and all, but they boil down to the same cr@p offered by him. Because you cannot answer the assertion put forth, I must answer yours? Pound sand.
These latest posts are just extensions of the same theme. We're really trying to get through to you, but I'm sorry to say it appears hopeless.
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe whole concept of attributes of God is a logical fallacy. You are basically redefining the words you are using, giving them new meanings then stating that God has those properties. However by every possible definition of the words you are using God still could not possibly fit them.
With respect to the attributes of God, no one has been able to demonstrate any logical fallacies, absurdities or gaps in logic therein.
For example "Eternal life" God can not be alive by any definition of the word and eternity looses all meaning when talking about entities outside spacetime.
Omnipresence - how can God be present when the word refers to physical things and God as we all know is not a physical entity. If spiritual things have specific physical locations no one has have show evidence for that.
Righteousness - What on earth does this word mean in the first place?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have another one. If we are applying attributes to God aren't we delineating certain constrains within God? Which thus contradict God's supposed sovereignty?
The whole concept of attributes of God is a logical fallacy. You are basically redefining the words you are using, giving them new meanings then stating that God has those properties. However by every possible definition of the words you are using God still could not possibly fit them.
For example "Eternal life" God can not be alive by any definition of ...[text shortened]... show evidence for that.
Righteousness - What on earth does this word mean in the first place?
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by David CYou do realize that you are also full of it DC. He (Freaky) is working from the premise that the Christian God is fact. From that, the only special revelation (that we know of) other than the very Nature He created is “Inspired Writing”. Freaky is challenging you to point out the contradictions (if any) within this said writing. Step up or go home. Your tiresome drivel is getting as stale as my breath. How about something new for a change -- perhaps even non-derogatory.
What a Craigian pantload your posts are. The 'absurdity', boy, is that first you postualte that god is real (a 'given', I think you stated), and then you proceed to utilize the only source you have for this assertion to expound on his 'attributes'. You challenge the non-theist to point out the 'logical fallacies' in a dissertation on the nature of a Magical ...[text shortened]... izing to your usual crowd. They're probably just getting out of kindergarten about now.
13 Mar 06
Originally posted by HalitoseSome have pointed out the absurdities of his statements. Of course, as so many of us have iterated continually here, it really doesn't matter because his assumption that the Christian God (and really Freak's take on the Christian God) exists makes the whole exercised a nice boring closed loop.
You do realize that you are also full of it DC. He (Freaky) is working from the premise that the Christian God is fact. From that, the only special revelation (that we know of) other than the very Nature He created is “Inspired Writing”. Freaky is challenging you to point out the contradictions (if any) within this said writing. Step up or go home. Your tir ...[text shortened]... ting as stale as my breath. How about something new for a change -- perhaps even non-derogatory.
As has been noted, one could do the same thing with Sauron or Magic Elves or Muffy. State a bunch of attributes. Allow sufficient wiggle room such that any objections can be dismissed with vague appeals to extra-natural spaces. If pressed, make up properties of these extra-natural spaces as they suit your purpose. The final step is to forget any of these special properties as you don't want them to tie your hands in future discussions.
There are two key problems with Freak's thread. First, there are woefully few binding constraints on Freak's exercise. He can essentially make up whatever he wants. Second, since he assumed his god exists outright whatever follows is pretty much meaningless. Even if he manages to construct a consistent story, it's all predictated upon the assumption that his god exists. Question that assumption and everything he wrote goes down the tube. That doesn't make him wrong, just incredibly boring.
The only way assuming that Freak's god exists can be interesting is if it actually leads to a contradiction, something Freak has made impossible with very loose (and often meaningless) language.