| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"alen" |
| Date: |
27 Nov 2005 08:35:15 PM |
| Object: |
Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
bob young wrote:
Pastor Dave wrote:
that MAN CREATED GODS.
Well, YOU said so, so it MUST be true.
to ANYONE with an OUNCE of common sense it is !
Sure! What person with common sense would fail to accept
that a dead mineral cosmos, with no consciousness at all,
could spontaneously, magically produce living, conscious
beings, and that anyone who thought that only a being that
has life can produce beings with life, and only a being that
has intelligence can produce beings with intelligence, must
be indulging in arbitrary myths and fantasies.
Perhaps an ounce does, after all, describe an upper limit to
the common sense of some atheists.
Alen
.
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
30 Nov 2005 07:43:53 PM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
<m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1133395740.235777.163210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
To seek to understand a non thing is an error.
Any understanding you *think* you have will be nonsense - hence
Theology.
You are going nowhere with this.
You are wasting your time.
Yeah probably - but I like seeing my wisdom in print.It is a fetish
that i have.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
01 Dec 2005 06:43:27 AM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1133401433.341976.322600@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bill Gamelson wrote:
<m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1133395740.235777.163210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
To seek to understand a non thing is an error.
Any understanding you *think* you have will be nonsense - hence
Theology.
You are going nowhere with this.
You are wasting your time.
Yeah probably - but I like seeing my wisdom in print.It is a fetish
that i have.
Do you believe that you are the only person who posesses wisdom?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
01 Dec 2005 08:02:30 PM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1133401433.341976.322600@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bill Gamelson wrote:
<m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1133395740.235777.163210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
To seek to understand a non thing is an error.
Any understanding you *think* you have will be nonsense - hence
Theology.
You are going nowhere with this.
You are wasting your time.
Yeah probably - but I like seeing my wisdom in print.It is a fetish
that i have.
Do you believe that you are the only person who posesses wisdom?
No. More than some, less than others.
Same goes for inteligence and sex appeal.
8-)
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "666" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
29 Nov 2005 06:49:18 AM |
|
|
GOD is incomprehensible by mere human thought
Only through meditation can one understand HIM!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
29 Nov 2005 11:31:47 AM |
|
|
666 wrote:
GOD is incomprehensible by mere human thought
Only through meditation can one understand HIM!
===>Indeed, you must hypnotize yourself into believing
such things. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
01 Dec 2005 08:40:14 PM |
|
|
666 wrote:
GOD is incomprehensible by mere human thought
Only through meditation can one understand HIM!
Why would I want to?
What would be my motivation?
Assume when composing your answer that I am :
(1) of reasonable inteligence
(2) curious
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ananias917" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
01 Dec 2005 09:15:13 PM |
|
|
On 1 Dec 2005 18:40:14 -0800, "Richo"
<m.richardson@utas.edu.au> spake thusly:
666 wrote:
GOD is incomprehensible by mere human thought
Only through meditation can one understand HIM!
Why would I want to?
What would be my motivation?
Assume when composing your answer that I am :
(1) of reasonable inteligence
Then why did you misspell intelligence? :)
--
"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house;
and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way
as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
- Acts 9:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
02 Dec 2005 12:47:51 AM |
|
|
Ananias917 wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 18:40:14 -0800, "Richo"
<m.richardson@utas.edu.au> spake thusly:
666 wrote:
GOD is incomprehensible by mere human thought
Only through meditation can one understand HIM!
Why would I want to?
What would be my motivation?
Assume when composing your answer that I am :
(1) of reasonable inteligence
Then why did you misspell intelligence? :)
I can't spell.
When I was in school I came to hate the fact that english spelling had
no logic or structure to it - just thousands of individual words with
their individual spellings.
That is why "Dyslexia" is so common an affliction amongst english
speakers and writers.
Various attempts to reform the spelling of english have been preposed
but none have gained wide acceptence (the exception being certain
American spellings which have taken hold in the US - but even that has
been peicemeal at best.)
My younger brother was a particular sufferer from dyslexia and had a
great struggle with himself and others thinking he was "dumb". He isnt,
by the way.
I consider english spelling to be a great and preventable cruelty that
we inflict on generation after generation of children.
So does the inability to spell english directly equate to low
inteligence?
I can play a decent game of chess, enjoy logic puzzles and games -
partculary those involving abstact pattern and number, score in the
120's or above on standard IQ tests, can write computer programs
(machine code and high level) that control real time machines, can
design circuit boards for electronic systems, fault find and repair
scientific instrumentation, have a physics degree from a real
university, etc etc
But you are quite correct - my spelling stinks. So I guess that makes
me an idiot, right?
Now, I have answered your question - can you answer *my* question?
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
02 Dec 2005 09:02:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Then why did you misspell intelligence? :)
I can't spell.
When I was in school I came to hate the fact that
english spelling had no logic or structure to it - just
thousands of individual words with their individual
spellings.
Hi, Mark.
Spelling always came easily to me, since first grade.
At first I really did think it was because I was smarter,
but disappointments in other areas have shown me
that I was wrong :-)
I've always wondered if it's just a knack some people
have - the way some can draw naturally, or have a
"feel" for math. Your thoughts?
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"His breasts are full of milk." - Job 21:24
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
02 Dec 2005 06:32:27 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 09:02:27 -0600, Mike Smith
<mikesmith@godisdead.com> wrote:
m.richardson@utas.edu.au wrote:
Then why did you misspell intelligence? :)
I can't spell.
When I was in school I came to hate the fact that
english spelling had no logic or structure to it - just
thousands of individual words with their individual
spellings.
Hi, Mark.
Spelling always came easily to me, since first grade.
At first I really did think it was because I was smarter,
but disappointments in other areas have shown me
that I was wrong :-)
I've always wondered if it's just a knack some people
have - the way some can draw naturally, or have a
"feel" for math. Your thoughts?
Hey Mike!
I think you have something there.
Being able to pick up spelling easy certainly does require a certain
inteligence - there is strong evidence that there there are several
kinds of intelligence - with lots of overlap and interaction between
them.
This is implicitly acknowledged in standard IQ test to a degree.
The test has language, logic, visual and memory tests.
So if you are a bit weak on one, the others can make up somewhat.
Some people have a strong "visial-spatial" intelligence - they can
"see" and manipulate shapes in there mind with ease - some people have
a strong word/ language intelligence etc.
Some lucky buggers are good at all of them - although from my
observations such people usually are still stonger in one or two areas
above the rest.
There are also famous examples of music, language or maths geniuses
("nerds") that are not particularly good at anything else.
I think this is where good early childhood education can make a
difference - to encourage integrated development of the different
kinds of intelligence. There is good evidence that encouraging fine
motor skills for example will have encouraging bennifits on other
areas.
I am not the worlds sportiest guy (massive understatement) - but I
make sure I play "catch" and football and all sorts of other games
with my son.
(Not only is this good fun and good for him - it prevents me from
being a complete couch potatoe!)
My dad *didnt* play ball games with me as a kid and when I got to
school I was at a huge disadvantage.
Basically there is more than one way of being smart.
Unfortunately, as we know, there is a bewildering number of ways to be
stupid as well.
8-)
Mark.
PS I have gone through this post and corrected my spelling of
intelligence - I got it wrong consistently!
I also have a lot of trouble with "different" and "seperate".
8-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ananias917" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
02 Dec 2005 03:55:09 AM |
|
|
On 1 Dec 2005 22:47:51 -0800,
spake thusly:
Ananias917 wrote:
On 1 Dec 2005 18:40:14 -0800, "Richo"
< > spake thusly:
666 wrote:
GOD is incomprehensible by mere human thought
Only through meditation can one understand HIM!
Why would I want to?
What would be my motivation?
Assume when composing your answer that I am :
(1) of reasonable inteligence
Then why did you misspell intelligence? :)
I can't spell.
When I was in school I came to hate the fact that english spelling had
no logic or structure to it - just thousands of individual words with
their individual spellings.
That is why "Dyslexia" is so common an affliction amongst english
speakers and writers.
Various attempts to reform the spelling of english have been preposed
but none have gained wide acceptence (the exception being certain
American spellings which have taken hold in the US - but even that has
been peicemeal at best.)
Dude, I was only teasing you. Note the smiley. :)
--
"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house;
and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way
as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
- Acts 9:17
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
29 Nov 2005 07:41:23 AM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005 19:17:28 -0800, in alt.atheism
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote in
<1133234248.758746.273250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
and that, since any reality must have an observer, there must,
therefore, be an eternal, self-observing observer, who cannot not
exist, i.e., God.
Even if your claim were true, which it is not, there is still no reason
to believe that the God you worship has to exist.
Alen
There are some philosophical arguments which are, themselves,
their own evidence, and this is one of them.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
29 Nov 2005 01:36:16 PM |
|
|
On 29 Nov 2005 05:41:23 -0800, in alt.atheism
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote in
<1133271683.732572.154300@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005 19:17:28 -0800, in alt.atheism
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote in
<1133234248.758746.273250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
and that, since any reality must have an observer, there must,
therefore, be an eternal, self-observing observer, who cannot not
exist, i.e., God.
Even if your claim were true, which it is not, there is still no reason
to believe that the God you worship has to exist.
Alen
There are some philosophical arguments which are, themselves,
their own evidence, and this is one of them.
No.
Alen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
29 Nov 2005 02:35:42 PM |
|
|
alen wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
On 28 Nov 2005 19:17:28 -0800, in alt.atheism
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote in
<1133234248.758746.273250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
and that, since any reality must have an observer, there must,
therefore, be an eternal, self-observing observer, who cannot not
exist, i.e., God.
Even if your claim were true, which it is not, there is still no reason
to believe that the God you worship has to exist.
Alen
There are some philosophical arguments which are, themselves,
their own evidence, and this is one of them.
It's only evidence if you're a Berkelian fanboi.
Alen
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
29 Nov 2005 02:34:30 PM |
|
|
alen wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
and that, since any reality must have an observer, there must,
therefore, be an eternal, self-observing observer, who cannot not
exist, i.e., God.
But our reality already has observers, us.
Alen
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
29 Nov 2005 11:26:10 AM |
|
|
alen wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
===>Which only implies that whatever exists today has always existed in
some other form, not requiring any "creator" to make it out of "nothing",
which would be impossible in any case, if "nothingness" is impossible!
Your argument is self-defeating either way you go.
and that, since any reality must have an observer,
===>Who said?
The eternally changing Flux, the Cosmos, exists,
has always existed and will always exist
with or without any "observer". -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
29 Nov 2005 08:57:51 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:438C8F32.1DA07BEA@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
alen wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
===>Which only implies that whatever exists today has always existed in
some other form, not requiring any "creator" to make it out of "nothing",
which would be impossible in any case, if "nothingness" is impossible!
Your argument is self-defeating either way you go.
and that, since any reality must have an observer,
===>Who said?
The eternally changing Flux, the Cosmos, exists,
has always existed and will always exist
with or without any "observer". -- L.
Near every night in your dreams, you create a believabable "cosmos" with
you playing the leading part in it, only to have that cosmos disappear
without a trace on waking up.
How do you know that this cosmos is not any different? Any objective,
verifiable evidence for that? Or are you just stating the tenets of your
religion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
30 Nov 2005 05:47:24 PM |
|
|
Pastor Frank wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:438C8F32.1DA07BEA@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
alen wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
===>Which only implies that whatever exists today has always existed in
some other form, not requiring any "creator" to make it out of "nothing",
which would be impossible in any case, if "nothingness" is impossible!
Your argument is self-defeating either way you go.
and that, since any reality must have an observer,
===>Who said?
The eternally changing Flux, the Cosmos, exists,
has always existed and will always exist
with or without any "observer". -- L.
Near every night in your dreams, you create a believabable "cosmos"
===>That is your problem, fake "pastor".
You seem to have lost all touch of reality,
not knowing what is real and what is just a product
of your cortical cells. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
02 Dec 2005 05:03:35 AM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:438E3A0C.452BEFFA@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Pastor Frank wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:438C8F32.1DA07BEA@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
alen wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had
to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
===>Which only implies that whatever exists today has always existed in
some other form, not requiring any "creator" to make it out of
"nothing",
which would be impossible in any case, if "nothingness" is impossible!
Your argument is self-defeating either way you go.
and that, since any reality must have an observer,
===>Who said?
The eternally changing Flux, the Cosmos, exists,
has always existed and will always exist
with or without any "observer". -- L.
Near every night in your dreams, you create a believabable "cosmos"
===>That is your problem, fake "pastor".
You seem to have lost all touch of reality,
not knowing what is real and what is just a product
of your cortical cells. -- L.
Then why do you believe in it, even for a moment?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
02 Dec 2005 10:17:57 PM |
|
|
Pastor Frank wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:438E3A0C.452BEFFA@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Pastor Frank wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:438C8F32.1DA07BEA@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
alen wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had
to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
===>Which only implies that whatever exists today has always existed in
some other form, not requiring any "creator" to make it out of
"nothing",
which would be impossible in any case, if "nothingness" is impossible!
Your argument is self-defeating either way you go.
and that, since any reality must have an observer,
===>Who said?
The eternally changing Flux, the Cosmos, exists,
has always existed and will always exist
with or without any "observer". -- L.
Near every night in your dreams, you create a believabable "cosmos"
===>That is your problem, fake "pastor".
You seem to have lost all touch of reality,
not knowing what is real and what is just a product
of your cortical cells. -- L.
Then why do you believe in it, even for a moment?
===>I don't. Do you? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
04 Dec 2005 03:14:51 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:43911C74.5DD236C8@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Pastor Frank wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:438E3A0C.452BEFFA@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Pastor Frank wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:438C8F32.1DA07BEA@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
alen wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It
had
to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
===>Which only implies that whatever exists today has always existed
in
some other form, not requiring any "creator" to make it out of
"nothing",
which would be impossible in any case, if "nothingness" is
impossible!
Your argument is self-defeating either way you go.
and that, since any reality must have an observer,
===>Who said?
The eternally changing Flux, the Cosmos, exists,
has always existed and will always exist
with or without any "observer". -- L.
Near every night in your dreams, you create a believabable
"cosmos"
===>That is your problem, fake "pastor".
You seem to have lost all touch of reality,
not knowing what is real and what is just a product
of your cortical cells. -- L.
Then why do you believe in it, even for a moment?
===>I don't. Do you? -- L.
More lies, Libertine? No normal person knows anything about "himself in
the real world" while dreaming, and he would vigorously deny dreaming if
confronted.
How come that everyone in your world is always wrong, and you are always
right without needing to prove your point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
04 Dec 2005 07:14:22 PM |
|
|
Pastor Frank wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:43911C74.5DD236C8@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Pastor Frank wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:438E3A0C.452BEFFA@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Pastor Frank wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:438C8F32.1DA07BEA@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
alen wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It
had
to
have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
===>Which only implies that whatever exists today has always existed
in
some other form, not requiring any "creator" to make it out of
"nothing",
which would be impossible in any case, if "nothingness" is
impossible!
Your argument is self-defeating either way you go.
and that, since any reality must have an observer,
===>Who said?
The eternally changing Flux, the Cosmos, exists,
has always existed and will always exist
with or without any "observer". -- L.
Near every night in your dreams, you create a believabable
"cosmos"
===>That is your problem, fake "pastor".
You seem to have lost all touch of reality,
not knowing what is real and what is just a product
of your cortical cells. -- L.
Then why do you believe in it, even for a moment?
===>I don't. Do you? -- L.
More lies, Libertine?
===>No, the lies are all yours, Dummy!
No normal person knows anything about "himself in
the real world" while dreaming, and he would vigorously deny dreaming if
confronted.
===>You know nothing about dreaming, stupid fake "pastor".
Perhaps you should look into "lucid dreaming".
How come that everyone in your world is always wrong,
===>NOT "everyone", just idiotic liars and deceivers like you,
fake "pastor" Frank.
When will you admit you are no real Christian, just an ersatz
imitator who is a Jew-hating, YHWH-hating, OT-hating neo-
Marcionite LIAR, pretending he is a "pristine" Christian while
even denying what the majority of Christians basically believe, i.e.
that Jesus was the literal son of the deity YHWH, whom you
denounce as the "God of the Jews"? -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
03 Dec 2005 12:02:31 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
alen wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
===>Which only implies that whatever exists today has always existed in
some other form, not requiring any "creator" to make it out of "nothing",
which would be impossible in any case, if "nothingness" is impossible!
Your argument is self-defeating either way you go.
and that, since any reality must have an observer,
===>Who said?
The eternally changing Flux, the Cosmos, exists,
has always existed and will always exist
with or without any "observer". -- L.
You can't even talk about anything not having any
observer, because the idea itself is impossible to
any mind. A mind always automatically includes
an observer, and cannot not do so.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
03 Dec 2005 05:53:03 PM |
|
|
alen wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
alen wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
===>Which only implies that whatever exists today has always existed in
some other form, not requiring any "creator" to make it out of "nothing",
which would be impossible in any case, if "nothingness" is impossible!
Your argument is self-defeating either way you go.
and that, since any reality must have an observer,
===>Who said?
The eternally changing Flux, the Cosmos, exists,
has always existed and will always exist
with or without any "observer". -- L.
You can't even talk about anything not having any
observer, because the idea itself is impossible to
any mind.
===>What an inane comment.
It obviously IS possible to many minds, including mine.
Just because yours is incapable of perceiving it, that
does not make it "impossible" yo everyone.
A mind always automatically includes
an observer, and cannot not do so.
===>So, what?
That is irrelevant. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
03 Dec 2005 10:38:50 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
and that, since any reality must have an observer,
===>Who said?
The eternally changing Flux, the Cosmos, exists,
has always existed and will always exist
with or without any "observer". -- L.
You can't even talk about anything not having any
observer, because the idea itself is impossible to
any mind.
===>What an inane comment.
It obviously IS possible to many minds, including mine.
Just because yours is incapable of perceiving it, that
does not make it "impossible" yo everyone.
Yes, it does. No matter what you imagine existing, you
automatically make yourself the observer of it. If you
exclude every observer, including yourself, you can't
think of it at all.
If you imagine something existing as not observed by you,
you can do so only by projecting part of yourself,
identified as some other observer, who observes it and also
that 'you' can't see it. There is no other way to achieve
this idea, and thus no way to think of anything as having
no observer at all. Such a thought only looks like a
thought, but is not, just as 2+2 = 5 only looks like an
equation, but is not.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
03 Dec 2005 11:19:47 PM |
|
|
alen wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
and that, since any reality must have an observer,
===>Who said?
The eternally changing Flux, the Cosmos, exists,
has always existed and will always exist
with or without any "observer". -- L.
You can't even talk about anything not having any
observer, because the idea itself is impossible to
any mind.
===>What an inane comment.
It obviously IS possible to many minds, including mine.
Just because yours is incapable of perceiving it, that
does not make it "impossible" yo everyone.
Yes, it does. No matter what you imagine existing, you
automatically make yourself the observer of it. If you
exclude every observer, including yourself, you can't
think of it at all.
If you imagine something existing as not observed by you,
you can do so only by projecting part of yourself,
identified as some other observer, who observes it and also
that 'you' can't see it. There is no other way to achieve
this idea, and thus no way to think of anything as having
no observer at all. Such a thought only looks like a
thought, but is not, just as 2+2 = 5 only looks like an
equation, but is not.
Alen
===>Just as your comment only LOOKS like a sensible
statement, but it is not. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD?. |
05 Dec 2005 06:37:34 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
===>What an inane comment.
It obviously IS possible to many minds, including mine.
Just because yours is incapable of perceiving it, that
does not make it "impossible" yo everyone.
Yes, it does. No matter what you imagine existing, you
automatically make yourself the observer of it. If you
exclude every observer, including yourself, you can't
think of it at all.
If you imagine something existing as not observed by you,
you can do so only by projecting part of yourself,
identified as some other observer, who observes it and also
that 'you' can't see it. There is no other way to achieve
this idea, and thus no way to think of anything as having
no observer at all. Such a thought only looks like a
thought, but is not, just as 2+2 = 5 only looks like an
equation, but is not.
Alen
===>Just as your comment only LOOKS like a sensible
statement, but it is not. -- L.
My response is that you are probably over-confident, or
whatever, and haven't made the effort to read it properly.
Alen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
29 Nov 2005 05:03:18 PM |
|
|
alen wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
and that, since any reality must have an observer, there must,
therefore, be an eternal, self-observing observer, who cannot not
exist, i.e., God.
Can it also be shown that this God is sung to, day and night, by
six-winged multiple-animal-headed creatures? Just like the Bible says?
Belief in God is pointless without such specific details *about* God.
It's not enough to show God's existence philosohpically. You must
demonstrate specific details *about* God; otherwise, people will just
make stuff up about Him.
--Billy
.
|
|
|
| User: "alen" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
02 Dec 2005 11:33:28 PM |
|
|
William T. Goat wrote:
alen wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
Bill wrote:
Great logic.
The Universe and living things could not just be or evolve. It had to have a
creator. By the same logic a creator would also need a creator?
===>It is creator turtles all the way down. -- L.
The typical, amused, off-handed over-confidence of atheists.
It can be shown philosophically that nothingness is impossible,
and that, since any reality must have an observer, there must,
therefore, be an eternal, self-observing observer, who cannot not
exist, i.e., God.
Can it also be shown that this God is sung to, day and night, by
six-winged multiple-animal-headed creatures? Just like the Bible says?
It is a mistake to interpret those kinds of images literally. They
are always hieroglyphic images that have a linguistic meaning.
Belief in God is pointless without such specific details *about* God.
It's not enough to show God's existence philosohpically. You must
demonstrate specific details *about* God; otherwise, people will just
make stuff up about Him.
--Billy
Do you not appreciate the significance of establishing the
existence rather than the non-existence of God? I think
that that alone is a very big step, and merits being
appreciated as such. The next step is, indeed, to try to
understand something about God, but such a step will
not be attempted, or given any regard, until the existence
of God is established.
Alen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD? |
04 Dec 2005 03:14:53 PM |
|
|
"alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:1133588008.593565.225670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Do you not appreciate the significance of establishing the
existence rather than the non-existence of God? I think
that that alone is a very big step, and merits being
appreciated as such. The next step is, indeed, to try to
understand something about God, but such a step will
not be attempted, or given any regard, until the existence
of God is established.
God is far beyond any "existence" and/or non-existence. For example the
proposition is: God is good. Good is an absolute and we know absolutes don't
exist. Yet we all know what is good. So good must exist after all. Therefore
God both exists and does not exist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
