God may hate you!
Offline Hello,
Many wimpy Christians today tell people that God loves everybody. God is a flower child and puts tulips in guns. If you don't like God, He sits outside your door like a pussy cat, scrathing your door until you let Him in. Jesus has long hair like Fabio and may be a homosexural in San Francisco.
This is NOT the Biblical Jesus. If Jesus was wanting to come in your door, He'd kick it down.
God does not love everybody. He hated Esau (Romans 9:13). John 3:16 is not about the whole planet world, but only His elect in the world.
So you filthy no good immoral atheists are actually possibly hated by God. You think you hate Him? His hate is a righteous hate. And He will throw you in flames forever. You will be tortured soon enough.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
God Loves Me, but He may Hate You!
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
- Login to post comments
Hey PCP Brian,
You're somewhat comical on accident.
Were your parents atheists? Did they die so you're pissed off at God? What happen in your life for you to become an absurd atheist?
I know you're on PCP so you're going to go nuts. Just breath and relax, this is a serious question. Even some of your atheist friends can't take your PCP outbursts (e.g. prozac).
Are you an Indian? What's going on?
What age were you when you were absurd? 13? 1? 0? Could you give me your testiomony of absurdity. Something evidently happened to cause you to be like Mighty Mouse on Speed when it comes to hating God.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Offer's still open Jean. You don't know anything about what you believe, do you lad?
Get this through your thick scull. I cannot hate fictional beings. Do you hate Lex Luthor?
I do hate your bad logic which leads you to believe that such a bad naked assertion. I do hate the fact that we know what DNA is and people like you are still using Kaliediscope bullshit placebos to justify rubbish.
According to you, NOT ME. I am under constant watch "omniscience" ALL SEEING.
That claim is a morally repugnant claim. That means, according to what that attribute claims, that humans are even being watched when they shit and pee and have sex. Remember that the next time you fuck a woman "doG is watching". You worship an Orwellian Big Brother with voyeuristic and an abusive spouse side with an epically horrible temper.
According to you, NOT ME, your alleged doG has the power to do anything he wants, ACCORDING TO YOU.
"Omni-potent" ALL POWERFUL
That means that by this standard when you compare it to human events, this character has watched, ACCORDING TO YOU, NOT ME, all the horrible death and disease and war and has sat on his hands and done nothing to stop it AND ON TOP OF THAT, blames us for something he didn't have to allow in the first place. "ALL POWERFUL
It has nothing to do with hating a doG that does not exist. It has to do with the claims people make about the god they claim is real.
THE CLAIMS ARE BROKEN CONCEPTS THAT MAKE NO SENSE.
Rejecting your superstitious fictional super hero is no different to me than rejecting claims of Thor or vampires And it would disturb me the same if people went around claiming those fictional things to be fact as well.
I am angry at you, not your fictional god. It is a stupid childish concept that merely reflects human ignorance because people's wishful thinking far too often overrides pragmatism. BY ANY NAME, not just your god, but all gods, past and present.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
That's arguable.
In fact, not much of what you assert, is not arguable, or correct.
It's not a proper sentence, because it is unresolved. God is also a common noun. Like 'cat'.
So, saying "Cat is.", is not proper english.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Hi Brian,
You never really answered my question. Were your parents atheists? Did you grow up celebrating atheist holidays and singing atheist carols? Did you roast chestnuts on an open fire with a festivus, for the rest of us?
When did you become an absurd atheist? Did your parents and somebody close die and you're pissed off at God? What is your testimony regarding your atheism?
Who died and how?
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
God hates me ? Well, get in line behind the others .....come to think of it, even I hate me.
I gather that the fundamental starting point for Jean is the ASSUMPTION, which is all it is, no matter how he wants to obfuscate the issue with talk of axioms, that the Bible is 'true'. This entails that the God(s) described in those writings simply exists, which what is understood by the statement 'God IS'. So all needed to say is 'The Bible is TRUE'. The rest follows from that assumption.
Now he needs to show just why he came to the conclusion that the Bible is TRUE, as distinct from the Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc.
Waiting...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
He's not on trial, you pathological witchhunter.
You are not in any position to be judge, jury and executioner to anyone, dufus...
We stripped you bigoted egomaniacal clowns of any power to do anything, but run your fucking mouths.
Deal with it, beotch.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Hi Bob,
I've gone over this with you more times then Brians has consumed PCP.
ALL arguments being with an assumption. ALL arguments being with an assumption. All arguments. All of them. every one. Each time. I've told you this so many times.
And I have argued my position. The issue regarding God may Hate you is an implication from the axioms.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Duhhh...
You're a 1 trick pony.
Actually, to be precise, you're an ass.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
OK, so to strictly state your position, it is that
"IF my interpretation of the Bible is TRUE, then what I believe is TRUE".
That is how arguments work, it is true. So the truth value of the conclusion is dependent on that of the starting assumptions.
So you have to justify your assumption that your interpretation of the Christian Bible is true, if you wish to advance your position beyond the status of an assumption.
In Science, a typical assumption will be "these observations have been repeated sufficiently carefully to take them as true for the sake of development/analysing/testing of Theory A."
If someone pushing an opposing theory wants to question those assumptions, they can break them down to progressively earlier assumptions and evidence. Sometimes really early and apparently well-established assumptions are overturned, falsified, and we start from a new 'paradigm'.
Conclusions following from those assumptions are then subject to testing themselves, and so on, in an ongoing iterative process.
At any point, the set of assumptions that seems to best fit the available observations is treated as the current working set.
Ideally, if you can trace an argument back to a very solidly confirmed set of observations, with the absolute minimum set of assumptions, little more than the Laws of Logic and basic axioms of Math, you can have pretty solid, while never absolute, confidence in the validity of that argument's conclusions,
So, do you really see that assumption of Biblical Truth your actual starting point?
That could be justified, possibly, if all other texts, all other faiths, all other possible scenarios had been examined and compared against it.
The alternative is to dig back thru the chain of assumptions behind your base assumption to something more basic.
Here ends my Lesson to you for today...
There will be test questions later.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Arguments are justified, poorly or through good method.
Claims are tested and bad claims start with assumptions. You cannot justify a claim before you have it tested.
Tested claims that are provable have prior data to back them up.
. DNA was not assumed, it was discovered because of prior science. It was not discovered through ancient myth and fictional gods. AND DNA is universal and independently testable. Something no god claim in human history has, NOT YOURS NOT ANY.
You cannot stick claims of Allah, Thor or even pink unicorns into a lab and have them independently tested and verified.
We don't pull things out of our ass here, you do. You buy into a book written over 1,000 year period with books left out and most certainly by people who had no fucking clue what scientific reality was.
That book pops out adult humans like magic. The reality is it takes 20 years for an adult to reach maturity. That book treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light. The reality is that the moon bounces the sunlight off of it's surface.
That book claims that WITHOUT a second set of DNA, that a baby magically was born. THAT BOOK claims that human flesh can magically survive rigor mortis (Jesus rising from the dead).
It reads like a fucking comic book, not anything that modern science IN REALITY has proven. It is a book of myth written by humans falsely believed to be fact.
How you manage to type on a computer INVENTED BY SCIENTISTS, is astounding. I am surprised that you can even dress yourself.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You are right. Jesus was not some peace loving hippy, and he did not come here to make friends.
He came here because everybody is wicked and needs a savior.
god started it.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
But Jean loves us. He told us so, he did.
Does....does that mean Jean is the devil ?
Hi Mr. Metaphysics,
I'm shocked. Most theists are kind of stupid. What you say is true. Though, God did not come to save everybody, only His elect.
_______
Hey Bob,
No, that is not my argument. My argument that God Is and the Bible is His true Word are axioms, self evident. This is due to the Image of God which is all of us (though perverted).
I start with that, and argue down via it's implications. My argument is valid and consistent. You don't like the soundness because you don't know the difference between logic and empiricism.
_______
Hey Brian,
Who died? When did you become an atheist? What caused you to be so angery. What is your atheistic testiomony? Are you ashamed of it? Is this why you don't share?
How old were you when your dad died?
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Was that supposed to be funny?
Was that supposed to be serious ?
You've got him hooked, Jean.
Now reel him in.
Sloooooowly...
Hey, Satan is serious business. I *know* he's serious business because:
S = (∃x) Sx = Satan exists
P-->Q = strict implication
P⊃Q = material implication
N(x) = It is necessary that X
~N~(x) = It is not necessary that not-X = It is possible that X
(1) S-->N(S)
(2) [S-->N(S)]⊃[~N~(S)-->S]
(3) ~N~(S)
(4) ~N~(S)-->S (1,2; MP)
::. S (3,4; MP)
Checkmate, Satan lover!
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I repeat, 'self-evident' is not an argument', it is an assertion that the actual argument is very obvious.
'Axiom' is either an assumption, or a definition of a principle.
However, I can see some progress here.
Now you have to justify your 'Image of God' idea. What is your evidence for it?
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Welcome to a few weeks ago.
I presented that argument and not a single atheist here was able to give an adequate response. Some of my favorites included:
"Axiom S5 is bad because the argument works only if axiom S5 is good!"
"All your premises are true, and your form is valid, but the argument is still false because I want to use the word 'epistemology' to seem more intelligent (oh, by the way, 'solopsism!')"
"I don't need God. Therefore, your argument is bad."
"This argument is a word game! How can you be convinced by it?"
I've proven the existence of God. This is a done deal. Don't bring up things from a few weeks ago. I've won this debate. Now will you put your faith and trust in Jesus, or do I have to prove Christianity as well?
lol... you haven't even presented a valid first premise for your argument, in fact, we having gotten past the DEFINITION of god. This is an analogy of what you have accomplished. You walked into a room, made a noise from your mouth that sounded like Klingon, and then you followed with farting sounds and knee slaps. Then you challenge everyone to refute your farts and knee slaps, but we haven't gotten past the Klingon yet.
At least Jenna there is consistent in what his first premise is, you can't even explain yours.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Congratulations !
Sure, go ahead. I've got 5 minutes.
Hi Bob,
The image of God is justifed by the axioms via the implication of Genesis 1:26. Though axioms are assumptions when you write them as an argument via a first principle.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Hahaha, premises aren't valid. Validity only applies to the forms of arguments. Saying that a premise is 'valid' is like saying that a rock is tired.
Oh wait. You're the guy who never studied logic, but presumes that his position is logical.
You don't know the definition of God? Then what position are you to even say that it is possible that God does not exist?
Come back when you are up to snuff. Until then, leave the debates to the grown ups.
Hi Mr. Metaphysics,
LOL, I think you're listening to to much Christian Rock. Turn off the jars of clay man. I'm a Christian.
But very good, a first premise is not valid. Validity is regarding a syllogistical argument. You must have been reading my posts.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
lol... you haven't even presented a first premise that doesn't beg the question. Resulting in an invalid argument (see I learned something today, thank you Jeanna ).
As for the definition of god, you have changed that three times, and when asked to explain what you mean by infinite you kept cherry picking the omni. If Jean was dead, he would be turning in his grave...
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Ah, revisionist history. How quaint.
I was consistent with my definition of God. I defined him as a 'limitless being'.
You said, in response, that a limitless being is limited because such a being does not 'include me'.
I asked what you meant by that, and you said that limitless would include things such as space, time, dimensions, etc.
I pointed out that this was a contradiction in terms because materiality is intrinsically limiting.
You responded by saying that a limitless being, in order to be truly limitless, has to be limitless in limitations, such that he is omnitemporal, omnispatial, etc.
I responded by citing the Catholic Encylopedia, which gave the same definition of God as limitless, covering everything that I was arguing in favor of. Here, I had a legitimate source written by credible scholars.
Then you said you'd check the website out, and went back to repeating everything that I rebutted.
Basically, your argument was: "If God is limitless, then he has no limits. But if he has no limits, then he is limited by having no limits. Therefore, God can't be limited." It's just some bizarre version of the paradox of omnipotence, and such things are easily dismantled.
You had nothing. My argument stands.
Hey Theist,
ah, you're starting to crash. God is not a limited Being. He does not limits. God Can't:
lie
grow
learn
go against His nature
God is defined by His attributes:
Omnipresent
Omnipotent
Omniscience etc.
Perhaps an infinite eternal Being would also apply. Infinite and Eternal have two different meanings. Another famous definitons is that He is immutable.
But Infinite Eternal Being is a general definition.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
You tell him, Jean ! Teach him some true christianity !
Don't you let those namby-pamby, so-called christians tell you what god's all about.
Hey crazy Jean,
You're somewhat insane on accident.
Were your parents theists? Did they die so in a childish way you would believe anything for them to still be alive? What happened in your life to make you become an absurd theist?
We all know you're crazy so you're going to act on your mentally unbalanced nature. Just relax and actually think for once, this is a serious question. Even some of your theist friends can't take your crazy outbursts (e.g. any sane people)
Are you a racist? Obviously! What's going on?
What age were you when you stopped using your brain? 13? 1? 0? Could you give me a testimonial of insanity? Some priest evidently raped you or you had electric-shock "therapy" for your schizophrenia to cause you to be a mindless sheeple who won't honestly confront the false claims in the "Holy" Babble when it comes to hating reality.
See Jean, I can do it too!
What, like this one?
Oh, by "adequate response" you mean agree with you 100% and suck up to you like a fucking lap dog? Sorry, but we just don't fall for silly little theist word games that have no actual evidence to back them up. Bring some evidence and we'll talk. Until then you're just another fool that got suckered in by the promise that you don't have to die. And if you're willing to believe something silly simply because of your fear of death that makes you a fucking coward.
So Jean, apparently you think Mr_MagicNotPhysics is learning from your posts and he's citing the Catholic Encyclopedia. What a good teacher you are! You must be so proud. Now what were some of those things you said about Catholics again? I remember something about how they are evil and base their practices on pagan beliefs (which I agree with, since ALL of Christianity is based on pagan beliefs, but that's beside the point). I wonder if Mr_MagicNotPhysics would agree with you on that one?
Theism makes strange bed fellows, doesn't it?
"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!
All you've proven is that you are a wishful thinker and that's all. Logic can only prove something whose premises are true. It's not hard to understand, is it? Christians - you twits see what you want to see in the absence of any evidence at all.
How convenient for you.
Jean is basically a complete arsehole, regardless of his entertainment value. Nothing he is saying adds anything to coherent debate. This is a man who calls on us to consider nebulous philosophical evidence yet denies the fossil record. What a tosser.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Watch the recoil or you won't hit anything.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
This is not a definition. You can't use this word to coherently describe any actual tributes or qualities. This definition must be some sort of joke.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness".
That is very vague - what is God's 'likeness'? What he would look like to our eyes? What we would get if we took a photo?
Nothing there suggests anything but physical appearance So God appears like an enormous Human Being? How does this verse relate to establishing the truth of the Bible? How come we haven't seen any glimpse of this giant creature in our now fairly comprehensive surveys of the Universe?
Such an interpretation is desperately naive in the modern context, but is not entirely surprising in the original context of recording primitive superstitions.
How can you get anything towards your assumptions/axioms from those few words, which make a claim which makes no sense at all, with no evidence for it whatever. All you have got from that verse is the phrase "Image of God". And that the writers of Genesis had limited imagination, not being able to conceive of a truly 'transcendent' being, merely a larger version of ourselves?? This makes the BIble seem less likely to be TRUE, especially alongside all the other parts of Genesis which portray two variations on origins, neither of which correspond in any meaningful way to what has since been discovered about the Universe and its origins.
Axioms are assumptions. Period. Apart from definitions, such as for 'line', point, circle, etc, which are foundational to geometry, which can be treated as axioms also.
And what is your 'first principle'?
Once again, is this it???
What you have presented here is an incredibly flimsy basis for your world-view, at least as it come across in your posts.
What other ideas do you bring into consideration to add to those few words of Genesis which you see as amounting to establishing the Truth of the whole text of the Bible?
If we had independent evidence of what the Creator of the Universe looked like, and it appeared that it really did look like us, that would be very surprising, and would certainly lend credibility to the text, although it could not in any logical sense prove any other claims in the text, especially since it has been recorded by mortal human beings. But of course if we had a way to determine something like that directly, the Bible would become a secondary source.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
So Jean, Is Mr M. a "true" Christian, or is he one of those liberal-satanic-freewilling-hippytype-democrat fake Christians?
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Mr_Metaphysics,
Your Modal version of the OA relies on S5 which is assumes, for validity, that you have complete knowledge of the proposition and its context, so that you can KNOW that it is POSSIBLY NECESSARY. Not 'possibly' in the sense of expressing lack of knowledge of, in this case, the actual attributes of God.
I now grasp S5, and it does indeed seem valid in this sense of 'possibly'.
However, to KNOW that God is 'possibly necessary' would require rather more complete knowledge of Reality, and the concept known as God, than I suspect even you could claim.
So while valid, to prove it sound, you would have to prove that God is 'possibly necessary'.
So it really doesn't advance your argument for God, does it? Even Platinga recognized this limitation.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I know, that is why I've converted to Christianity based on the soundness of your arguments, but my versions a bit different.
Satan is an evil bastard, and that explains why there is evil in the world, since if God were God and God was good there would exist a possible world where good was all there was and we'd be in it, according to his nature. But we aren't, so that means Satan is God, since Satan is clearly an evil trickster.
And I know Satan is serious because serious things are greater than non-serious things, just like existence is greater than non-existence. I know serious is greater because there are more things in the universe that make me serious than not. So that means Satan is serious business, *and* Satan is real. Him being the ultimate evil bastard makes it so. I know he's ultimate because he's ultimate.
I'm on your side now, Mr. Meta, the power of your logical deductions is so convincing I've abandoned my atheism in favor of my dark lord Satan. Since Satan wrote the Bible though that means (due to his intrinsic trickster nature, clearly spelled out in the Bible) that I actually need to avoid doing anything the Bible tells me to do.
It is only logical, right?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Thank you Jean, I was trying to point out that his definition was very general and unclear. And the OA is based on the semantics of the actual definition, as in the classical 'greater' OA. If your intellect wasn't sandwiched between two fat slices of mad I would actually have some respect for your POV.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
It's called intellectual honesty, if I make a mistake I admit it, and I also admit when I have no knowledge of something, you should try it sometimes.
As for the whole argument, I was just following your definition to an absurd conclusion, I don't actually hold those views. The problem with your argument is the premise is not true (earlier I used the term valid due to my ignorance ). Or rather, the definition that you use does not imply the conclusions you draw from it. It's not implicit that an infinite being with the qualities that YOU attribute follows the logic of your argument. It's not the same as implying that a bachelor is unmarried.
You're completely missing the point, I'm not trying to make a case for the paradox of omnipotence.
And this debate is not about winning or losing, it's validly questioning what you present. I have questions and you avoid them or chuck them up to absurd paradoxes... I didn't win anything, or lost anything... I was just trowing my two cents from a layman's perspective.
You claiming that I can't think logically because I haven't studied logic is just silly.
Also, get a sense of humour, at least learn that from Jean if nothing else.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Answers?
It's like an explosion of atheistic chaos went off like a bomb. You atheists, when you put yourselves together, are like The Big Bang, only this bang is logical and results in complete and total anarchy.
Yes, Roman Catholicism is completely absurd and is full of logical fallacies. It is based on paganism. To say that Christmas or Easter is pagan, so Christians are hypocrites is committing the genetic logical fallacy.
But the pagan Roman Catholic used correct logic. Even the devil can tell the truth and quote valid syllogisms.
But we are getting off topic of the OP. Boy, that OP is hansom, and smart, and that OP kills all you atheists. Anyway, the fact is, God may hate you. And while you say you don't since you deny His "existence", you're just kidding yourself.
I will continue to define atheism via the leading atheists of the 20th century, the reference works, and the encyclopedias of the 20th century. For the most part, the majority of reference works are on my side.
And since you atheists (Red????) have not been able to logically justify your definition via the philosophy of definition that George Smith's absurd book full of logical fallacies is right all of a sudden, and all the others are wrong.
Thus atheism, according to the leading experts (not some fringe extremeist atheistic group like this site) is defined thus:
Atheism, the denial of the existence of God.
Now don' t whine. Try to do what Red could not do thus losing both debates. Try to justify definition via how definitions go and demonstate while your smith version of atheism is correct verses the non-Smith versions that led atheism in the 20th century.
If you can't (and you can't), you are an absurd monkey always stretching for that banana, but never for that exam.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Who don't look at problems, properly. Stop with the 'scholar' label for navel gazers.
No, it doesn't, actually. It wreaks havoc.
Bring the 'limitless' thing into our debate, and you'll see how problematic it is to your argument.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Hello,
I agree with dead red. He's right. Limitless for a definition of God is the same definitions the Muslims have. Thus the paradox of the stone is what Red is talking about, the muslims accept the paradox of the stone.
Hey Ktula,
You are a huge hypocrite. You want Christians to define God, but you cannot even define atheism universally speaking. You cannot tell me why George Smith was right (lack of belief) and all the other atheists before him were wrong.
Christianity has a normative for it's definitions. All you have for your definitons are farts blowing in the wind. So while the actual definition of God is objective, your definition is like my Mother-in law's cooking, it's burnt and crusty and is hollow in the middle.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Why do you want him to define a particular as a universal? Why do you refuse to define the universal you claim to have?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hi JCG,
Very good. You're learning from me.
Thus you see and admit that he CANNOT know of his definition via knowledge, thus the very worldview he proposes is under doubt before he even opens his mouth. That goes for you to.
LOL. Finally. Now, I know you will wiggle around your geshtault (LOL), but you get it now.
God is defined by His Nature/Character and His attributes.
1) God is immutable
2) God is Eternal
3) God is Infinite
4) God is Omni (the 3 omni's).
5) God is transcendant and immanent
6) God IS Spirit (not a spirit).
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
So the best you can do is define God by things he isn't? Let's look at them anyway.
1. immutable - unchanging (not Biblical - God has repented of actions)
2. eternal - not temporal
3. infinite - not finite
4. the Omni's (again not Biblical - remember the Garden?)
5. The perennialist position you espouse stands against Christianity.
6. God is immaterial
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hi JCG,
The reason why you are running into so many errors, has to do with logic. E.W. Bullinger wrote a very extensive reference work on the figures of speech in the Bible. You ought to buy it.
anthropomorphism is a figure of speech. God did not repent, or change His mind, but expressed in human terms his disappointment.
Buy the book. I wrote a study course for a book on hermenutics. Perhaps I shall pass it your way.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
As for the errors I'm running into - they are indeed errors of logic. Your theology is illogical.
Give me titles - I have access to a better than average University library.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin