Would you agree...
Offline ... that if an argument can be presented where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and the conclusion is "God exists in the actual world," then would you agree that you have to accept the conclusion?
Would you agree that if there is no good reason for rejecting any of the premises, and the form is valid, then theism is rationally justified?
Can an atheist here present an example of an argument where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and yet the conclusion is false?
- Login to post comments
Offline You really have.
That was originally meant as I haven't lost a debate yet, but a quick glance at your response turns it into a double entendre.
Nobody cares about those religions.
Wrong. You don't care about those religions. I don't care about those religions any more than I care about yours. But plenty of people care about them all the same. You are leading me to suspect you're one of those folk who deludes themselves into believing that anyone who denies their god, really believes in him deep down, and hates him for some reason, so denies him out of spite. This will be pretty short if that's the way it goes.
No, they all agree that the greatest conceivable being is defined intensionally as omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, eternal, and immaterial. So you are wrong.
Ah, but that's not ALL they believe him to be, and some of the extra descriptions are mutually exclusive, so you are wrong. Also, their definitions of morality are inconsistent with each other, which makes them even more divided and you even more wrong.
So you know of Christians who say that God is not omnipotent, but is eternal? Or that he is not omniscient, but he is material? Can you cite some sources, or point me to some?
If you read enough topics on this site you'll see christians of all colours. They may not disagree with most of that definition, but the term "moral perfection" is subjective and ultimately the keystone to the destruction of the argument for such a god (although it's fun to use entropy to refute eternal from time to time). The christians have split a number of times over moral issues. So have the moslems. The jews were more dissipated than split, but there are a few recognizable denominations none the less.
Wrong. Omniscience, omnipotence, prudence, immateriality, and eternity are not subjective.
I never said omniscience, omnipotence, immateriality, or eternity were subjective. Don't put words in my mouth. Not only is it rude, you automatically lose points with observers. Your argument is weak enough as it is, you don't need to slap it aside so casually.
As for prudence, you just switched terms. We're talking about morality, not prudence. I never even mentioned prudence. And you thought you'd won? You're literally handing this to me on a silver platter.
And people disagree on the age of the earth; therefore, there is no age that the earth has.
Great argument. LOL.
People don't disagree on the age of the Earth. The vast majority of near 7 billion people who make up the human species recognizes the fact that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and we all laugh at the few hundred crazy people who try to convince themselves otherwise.
LOL
So you believe that everything is material? (I dare you to say "yes"
Yes. I dare you to drag out the same old arguments I've defeated a thousand times. 
Quote:Omnipotence, omniscience, and eternal are contradictory.How so?
Sorry, the cat jumped on the keyboard while I was still editting. I figured I might have time to finalise before you saw it, but I guess not. I realised you hadn't used immortal at all, merely eternal, before I had finished editting, and was going back to change it when the cat jumped up and posted it for me. lol.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Yes, those "other" religions.... the active Buddhists ( China, over 1 billion population ) and Hindus ( India, over 1 billion population ) hmmm, one could conservatively assume that their adherents number in the tens of millions. You're right, no body cares about those religions.... especially if your a chauvinistic Christian who can't stand to acknowledge that Christianity is not pre-eminent among humanity. There's a whole world outside of "Jesus Land" when it comes to those "other" religions that no one supposedly cares about.
You didn't mention Buddhism or Hinduism; I recall you mentioned scientology, but I didn't really read that part of your post in any real depth.
I know of Christians who reject the Trinity, ie, Oneness Pentecostals..... ( que " but they're not real Christians!!! )
That wasn't my question.
- Login to post comments
Offline Luminon wrote:Mr_Metaphysics wrote:Well, you made a tautological proposition and then asked us about it. All right, so assuming that your proposed always true argument would be seen in reality, then it would be accepted. Reality must be one of your premises, which you didn't specify.No, my question wasn't a tautology. It highlighted the disparity between proof and persuasion; a proposition can be tautological, but that does not necessitate that it will be generally accepted--people, such as yourself, tend to think illogically.
Let's assume that it wasn't seen in reality (whatever you may mean by "seen"
On the other side, if a claim is internally incoherent, (like Bible) we can reject it outright, there is no point in taking it seriously.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
- Login to post comments
Offline Vastet wrote:Forgive me my skepticism that after more than 30 years of garnering evidence and logic to the contrary, you can convince me there is an allpowerful god with a logical and rational argument. Far as I'm aware, the only thing that would have a hope in hell of convincing me there is a god is that god. You'd have a better chance arguing that the universe was caused by a colour laughing in another dimension.
As to disproving god, you'll have to define it, her, or him first.
Are you not able to answer a simple question? Assume that there is an argument where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and the conclusion is "God exists"; would you then be willing to accept that he does?
As far as defining God, why would I have to do that? Are you an atheist or not? If you don't know what "God" means, then you aren't an atheist; you are an a-I -don't-know-what.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
- Login to post comments
Offline Vastet wrote:Lol. You're new to this aren't you?
The answer to the original question is yes. If a non fallacious, logical, coherent, rational explanation were given, yes.
As far as defining god, different religions define god in different ways. Is he omnipotent? Just powerful? Apathetic? Loving? Etc. I reject all of them. But to disprove yours I need to know what yours is.
Actually, I've been debating atheists for quite some time, and I dare say that you would not really be a challenge for me.
Thank you for answering my question.
And the religions that anybody cares about--that being Christianity, Judaism, and Islam--all define God the same way; the greatest conceivable being.
Can you disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, immaterial, morally perfect being?
I would offer again my theodicy argument:
1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).
2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).
3)x necessarily would not allow q
4)p--> not q
5) It is possible that god is x
6)q --> not p
7) Our world=q therefore not p
8)not p
9)not p--->not x
10)not x
11)god= not x
Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.
Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. Also a world of limitless well being would necessarily exist in all possible worlds. Since it does not do in ours then it is not necessary and therefore is a choice of many worlds. A limitless good entity, god or such would choose the best to create. Since we do not live in that world no limitless good being/god actualized our world.
The argument at least places the question as to whether our attributes of god in conflict with themselves show that they are really in conflict with his actual properties and therefore invalid or simply relative compliments of worship that are not literal but poetic.
Again definitions become important as to perfect being, morally perfect and what have you.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
- Login to post comments
Offline That was originally meant as I haven't lost a debate yet, but a quick glance at your response turns it into a double entendre.
Haw haw haw... and hot dogs look like penises!! Huh huh huh.
Are you a pimply faced high school punk?
Wrong. You don't care about those religions. I don't care about those religions any more than I care about yours. But plenty of people care about them all the same. You are leading me to suspect you're one of those folk who deludes themselves into believing that anyone who denies their god, really believes in him deep down, and hates him for some reason, so denies him out of spite. This will be pretty short if that's the way it goes.
Don't change the subject; please address the God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
Ah, but that's not ALL they believe him to be
That doesn't matter. The intensional definition of something only covers the essential properties, that is, the properties by which something is defined and without which this being ceases to be the kind of thing that it is. If something lacks accidental qualities, that does not modify the definition of a thing; it is merely lacking non-essentials.
and some of the extra descriptions are mutually exclusive, so you are wrong. Also, their definitions of morality are inconsistent with each other, which makes them even more divided and you even more wrong.
Are we talking about definitions or not? You said that they defined God differently, not that they differed in the secondary qualities (which I agree, they do).
If you read enough topics on this site you'll see christians of all colours.
I want a SOURCE or LINK.
I never said omniscience, omnipotence, immateriality, or eternity were subjective. Don't put words in my mouth. Not only is it rude, you automatically lose points with observers. Your argument is weak enough as it is, you don't need to slap it aside so casually.
You said perfection was subjective, and "perfection" is so defined as the above (read any natural theologian).
As for prudence, you just switched terms. We're talking about morality, not prudence. I never even mentioned prudence. And you thought you'd won? You're literally handing this to me on a silver platter.
"Prudence" means "making good decisions"; morality falls under that category.
People don't disagree on the age of the Earth.
Ok.
we all laugh at the few hundred crazy people who try to convince themselves otherwise.
But you just said that they DON'T disagree on the age of the earth; are you now saying that they do?
Yes. I dare you to drag out the same old arguments I've defeated a thousand times.
Okay. How much does the number "7" weigh?
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:Mr_Metaphysics wrote:jcgadfly wrote:No thanks. As we've seen from this thread you can't define your terms and know nothing of your religion. As Dawkins once said, debating you would do more for your CV than for mine.
LOL. A Dawkins fan. Go figure.
Are you a regular subscriber to unsophisticated literature?
No, I don't subscribe to the Bible. Our individual opinions of Dawkins doesn't change the point of the quote. Debating you would give your lack of knowledge undeserved credence.
I'm curious. Do you seriously think Dawkins is brilliant?
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
- Login to post comments
Offline Muslims can reject many things while still accepting the same definition of "God" as Christians; you can still accept that God is a maximally great being while rejecting that his nature is shared in common by three separate persons. In the same way, if I invent a religion which holds that God said something other than "I am what I am," it does not follow that I have a different definition of God.
Therefore Islam is theologically interchangeable with Christianity ? You are suspiciously downplaying an issue that sets Christianity apart from true monotheistic religions.
Maybe you could tell me how you understand the doctrine of the Trinity; what do you think it says?
You apparently are the expert here, therefore I am more interested in how you define it. Enlighten me.
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:In his field of expertise he's one of the better ones. When he steps outside of biology, I consider him intelligent though I don't always agree with him. Brilliant, no.
Next question: How many books against your position have you read?
Don't know an exact number but probably more than you 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
- Login to post comments
Offline No, then I would not accept something, that does not have an effect on reality.
So even if you had a mathematical proof which concludes that "God exists in reality," you would not accept that God exists in reality simply because God has no effect on reality??????
- Login to post comments
Offline Therefore Islam is theologically interchangeable with Christianity ? You are suspiciously downplaying an issue that sets Christianity apart from true monotheistic religions.
I'm not downplaying it, but it's off-topic. We're talking about the definition of God; they define it the same way.
You apparently are the expert here, therefore I am more interested in how you define it. Enlighten me.
I know what it states, but you are the one who invoked it. Therefore it's your burden.
- Login to post comments
Offline Mr_Metaphysics wrote:jcgadfly wrote:In his field of expertise he's one of the better ones. When he steps outside of biology, I consider him intelligent though I don't always agree with him. Brilliant, no.
Next question: How many books against your position have you read?
Don't know an exact number but probably more than you have.
Give me five different examples of such books, please.
- Login to post comments
Offline ProzacDeathWish wrote:Yes, those "other" religions.... the active Buddhists ( China, over 1 billion population ) and Hindus ( India, over 1 billion population ) hmmm, one could conservatively assume that their adherents number in the tens of millions. You're right, no body cares about those religions.... especially if your a chauvinistic Christian who can't stand to acknowledge that Christianity is not pre-eminent among humanity. There's a whole world outside of "Jesus Land" when it comes to those "other" religions that no one supposedly cares about.
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:You didn't mention Buddhism or Hinduism; I recall you mentioned scientology, but I didn't really read that part of your post in any real depth.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:That wasn't me, you are confusing me with Vastet.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:]I know of Christians who reject the Trinity, ie, Oneness Pentecostals..... ( que " but they're not real Christians!!! )Mr_Metaphysics wrote:That wasn't my question.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Yes, I see, so .....are we following a script now ?
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:Mr_Metaphysics wrote:jcgadfly wrote:In his field of expertise he's one of the better ones. When he steps outside of biology, I consider him intelligent though I don't always agree with him. Brilliant, no.
Next question: How many books against your position have you read?
Don't know an exact number but probably more than you have.
Give me five different examples of such books, please.
Answer this first - how many books against your view have you read with an open mind?
Take your time - fighting a summer cold and need to rest.
"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
- Login to post comments
Offline ProzacDeathWish wrote:Therefore Islam is theologically interchangeable with Christianity ? You are suspiciously downplaying an issue that sets Christianity apart from true monotheistic religions.
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:I'm not downplaying it, but it's off-topic. We're talking about the definition of God; they define it the same way.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:How can it be off-topic when it's one of the foundational beliefs of Christianity ? Is their theology interchangeable with Christianity, then ? Yes or No ?
ProzacDeathWish wrote:You apparently are the expert here, therefore I am more interested in how you define it. Enlighten me.
Mr_Metaphysics wrote:I know what it states, but you are the one who invoked it. Therefore it's your burden.
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Wow, so now you choose to be circumspect ? That's odd. Why so reluctant to just lay it out for me ? I can easily access a Christian website and post the link if you really want me to, but why not just lay your theological cards on the table ? Is it too much for you ?
- Login to post comments
Offline jcgadfly wrote:Mr_Metaphysics wrote:ProzacDeathWish wrote:Mr_Metaphysics wrote:
And the religions that anybody cares about--that being Christianity, Judaism, and Islam--all define God the same way.
No, they do not. Judaism and Islam are truly monotheistic in their god-concept. God is singular. Only the Christian offshoot evolved the idea into a muddled idea of three in one, one in three. Jews and Muslims are not trinitarians.
Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe in one God that is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, immaterial, and morally perfect. The Trinity merely states that the nature of God, the maximally excellent eternal immaterial being, is shared amongst three coexistent persons; this has nothing to do with the nature of God that those three religions all believe in common.
Why is it that Christians know so little of their religion but still keep talking about it?
LOLOL!
Do you seriously want to debate me on the Trinity?
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
- Login to post comments
Offline Luminon wrote:No, then I would not accept something, that does not have an effect on reality.
So even if you had a mathematical proof which concludes that "God exists in reality," you would not accept that God exists in reality simply because God has no effect on reality??????
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
- Login to post comments
Offline Mr_Metaphysics wrote:If god exits in reality but has no effect on reality god could be reality itself which is acted upon rather than acting. God could simply be an effect of reality. But then that does not go with the defintion that you do not wanna give of god it would seem to me. Math in conflict with empiricism might just loose out. Many formulas are disporven by there failure to predict an event.Luminon wrote:No, then I would not accept something, that does not have an effect on reality.
So even if you had a mathematical proof which concludes that "God exists in reality," you would not accept that God exists in reality simply because God has no effect on reality??????
You have a pretty wife.
Anyway, if God is reality itself, then I don't see how it's meaningful to say that he exists in it.
- Login to post comments
Offline No, then I would not accept something, that does not have an effect on reality. It seems that which you describe is a kind of internally coherent claim. There are many internally coherent claims, but mere internal coherence does not make them possible. External coherence with reality makes them possible, but not yet real. Only an observed impact on reality makes them logically necessary to accept.
On the other side, if a claim is internally incoherent, (like Bible) we can reject it outright, there is no point in taking it seriously.
I like this, well stated.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
- Login to post comments
Offline ... that if an argument can be presented where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and the conclusion is "God exists in the actual world," then would you agree that you have to accept the conclusion?
Yes.
]Would you agree that if there is no good reason for rejecting any of the premises, and the form is valid, then theism is rationally justified?
For it to be "justified," you would have to show that the premises are true.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
- Login to post comments
Offline Welcome back Mr. M.
I hope you have been well.
I'm with Luminon on this, you need to have an observable effect on reality for your internally coherent claim to have any bearing on reality.
Here's a good definition that implies your attributes but doesn't come out and state them
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29435 post #21
This is by no means a refutation to your point, in fact it reinforces your point, I just found that definition to be one of the more elegant and original ones out there and wanted to share. 
you're welcome. This is also the type of theist that you want to have in your camp.
As for the weight of number seven, it has roughly the same weight as the concept 'orange'. In that it weighs as much as the electrons carrying that information in your brain. With an MRI you can even have a picture of number 7, or 'orange' or 'gray horse'. Now you tell me how you communicate to someone that was born without any of the five senses, the concept of number 7.
Oh, and it's good to have you back man, you belong amongst us, I don't think you'd get the same stimulation from any theistic forum. Let's be honest, you're here because you enjoy having a somewhat intelligent conversation. It's ok, we won't tell on you.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
- Login to post comments
Offline
Can you disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, immaterial, morally perfect being?
You can't prove or disprove that which does not exist. How many times do we have to go over this?
The only thing about a god that exists is the shadow men with a desire for such cast.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
- Login to post comments
Forgive me my skepticism that after more than 30 years of garnering evidence and logic to the contrary, you can convince me there is an allpowerful god with a logical and rational argument. Far as I'm aware, the only thing that would have a hope in hell of convincing me there is a god is that god. You'd have a better chance arguing that the universe was caused by a colour laughing in another dimension.
As to disproving god, you'll have to define it, her, or him first.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
My information is, that the idea of God in reality covered by science has a long history of failing and failing repeatedly and never, not even once succeeding.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Are you not able to answer a simple question? Assume that there is an argument where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and the conclusion is "God exists"; would you then be willing to accept that he does?
As far as defining God, why would I have to do that? Are you an atheist or not? If you don't know what "God" means, then you aren't an atheist; you are an a-I -don't-know-what.
Thank you for telling me what I already know, fake theist.
Now would you mind actually answering my question?
Lol. You're new to this aren't you?
The answer to the original question is yes. If a non fallacious, logical, coherent, rational explanation were given, yes.
As far as defining god, different religions define god in different ways. Is he omnipotent? Just powerful? Apathetic? Loving? Etc. I reject all of them. But to disprove yours I need to know what yours is.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Actually, I've been debating atheists for quite some time, and I dare say that you would not really be a challenge for me.
Thank you for answering my question.
And the religions that anybody cares about--that being Christianity, Judaism, and Islam--all define God the same way; the greatest conceivable being.
Can you disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, immaterial, morally perfect being?
Am I atheist or not? I have an idea, a hugely vast theory in fact, which works with a concept of divinity. A divinity, which is potential in everything, but may become less or more manifested. Theoretically, there may be beings who manifested their divine potential to such a degree, that they will seem like gods to us. But they themselves will be aware of beings much more divine than them, but even they will be just disciples on a path. Divinity is like a carrot on a stick in front of a donkey. The carrot is not a reachable God, it only points in a general direction of it. (reminds me of Buddha and finger pointing at the moon)
But contrary to most of theists, I know that this is an idea, a useful theory or mental instrument to make sense of certain things and literature. I don't have absolute proof ( = the right to be absolutely convinced) and I don't need to convince everyone about it. Most of people actually don't have such experiences and interests to need such a theoretical instrument.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
No, my question wasn't a tautology. It highlighted the disparity between proof and persuasion; a proposition can be tautological, but that does not necessitate that it will be generally accepted--people, such as yourself, tend to think illogically.
I'm not interested in any woo-woo theories. I just wanted an answer to my question.
You already have a problem. If you go the "greatest conceivable being" route then God depends on the conciever.
If you go the route of the other question you asked:
The Bible itself disproves your God's moral perfection.
The "omnis" fail because they can't be defined in a sensible manner.
"Eternal" has the same problem as the "omnis" - define "forever"
"Immaterial" tells me what your god isn't - what is your god?
"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
No, they do not. Judaism and Islam are truly monotheistic in their god-concept. God is singular. Only the Christian offshoot evolved the idea into a muddled idea of three in one, one in three. Jews and Muslims are not trinitarians.
Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe in one God that is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, immaterial, and morally perfect. The Trinity merely states that the nature of God, the maximally excellent eternal immaterial being, is shared amongst three coexistent persons; this has nothing to do with the nature of God that those three religions all believe in common.
Why is it that Christians know so little of their religion but still keep talking about it?
"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
No, "greatest conceivable being" has nothing to do with dependency; learn what it means before you comment on it.
At best, that would show that Christianity is the wrong religion; therefore, your objection is irrelevant.
Omnipotent means that God can do any logically possible thing.
Omniscient means that there is nothing that can be known which God does not know.
That's not even what it means.
You said there was a problem; what is the problem?
I haven't lost yet.
You're welcome.
I'll generously ignore the idea that noone cares or cared about scientology or wiccanism or the Greek and Roman gods or billions of others throughout history in the interest of getting closer to the point faster.
The christians, jews, and moslems can't agree on the definition of the greatest conceivable being. The christians can't even agree with each other on the definition of the greatest conceivable being. I've argued with a few jews and a lot of christians. The argument rarely goes exactly the same way with christians, and jews were a whole different story altogether. I can only imagine the moslems have a different take as well, considering the animosity between the three of them.
Yes, I can disprove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, immaterial, morally perfect being. I've done it before. You actually make it quite easy by putting all that together in one being.
For one thing, perfection is subjective, if it can even be said to exist (noone has ever observed perfection and shown it).
For another, morality is learned behaviour. Different people have different morals. No two people on Earth have the exact same morality. It's like snowflakes and fingerprints.
Thirdly, the term immaterial is irrational. If it isn't material, then what is it?
Omnipotence, omniscience, and eternal are a strange combination. If eternal, omnipotent, and omniscient, then in a way, "god" is already dead. Life is roughly comparable to change. Not all changes are life, but all life is constantly changing. But if those qualities are expressed by "god", then god is unchanging, and therefore not alive in any fashion at all.
I've gotten this far and I don't even know what you consider to be the standard of moral perfection, or how you will describe or not describe immaterial, or whether eternal even indicates immortal.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
LOLOL!
Do you seriously want to debate me on the Trinity?
Well then: I'm a woo-theorist and woo-practitioner. Atheists call me theist, theists call me atheist. This is an atheist forum, hence the theist badge. I have a mind wide enough to accomodate both theism, atheism and more, but neither of them want to live in shared quarters
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Their definitions of god stand apart from you trinitarian concept no matter how much you equivocate. If you are too dishonest to acknowledge that they are distinct and separate from your Christian "version" then I guess you are no different than the average Christian apologist who routinely trades in double-speak, blurred definitions, obfuscations, etc in order to avoid an obvious contradiction.
They emphatically reject the concept of the trinity and although it may seem like no big deal to you it obviously bothers them enough that they have historically repudiated that concept and probably always will.
You are undefinable, Luminon.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You really have.
Nobody cares about those religions.
No, they all agree that the greatest conceivable being is defined intensionally as omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, eternal, and immaterial. So you are wrong.
So you know of Christians who say that God is not omnipotent, but is eternal? Or that he is not omniscient, but he is material? Can you cite some sources, or point me to some?
Wrong. Omniscience, omnipotence, prudence, immateriality, and eternity are not subjective.
And people disagree on the age of the earth; therefore, there is no age that the earth has.
Great argument. LOL.
So you believe that everything is material? (I dare you to say "yes"
How so?
No thanks. As we've seen from this thread you can't define your terms and know nothing of your religion. As Dawkins once said, debating you would do more for your CV than for mine.
"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
Let's assume that it wasn't seen in reality (whatever you may mean by "seen"
, but yet the argument still met those aforementioned qualifications; would you accept it as true?
LOL. A Dawkins fan. Go figure.
Are you a regular subscriber to unsophisticated literature?
No, I don't subscribe to the Bible. Our individual opinions of Dawkins doesn't change the point of the quote. Debating you would give your lack of knowledge undeserved credence.
"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
Muslims can reject many things while still accepting the same definition of "God" as Christians; you can still accept that God is a maximally great being while rejecting that his nature is shared in common by three separate persons. In the same way, if I invent a religion which holds that God said something other than "I am what I am," it does not follow that I have a different definition of God.
Maybe you could tell me how you understand the doctrine of the Trinity; what do you think it says?
I'm curious. Do you seriously think Dawkins is brilliant?
In his field of expertise he's one of the better ones. When he steps outside of biology, I consider him intelligent though I don't always agree with him. Brilliant, no.
"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
Next question: How many books against your position have you read?
Yes, those "other" religions.... the active Buddhists ( China, over 1 billion population ) and Hindus ( India, over 1 billion population ) hmmm, one could conservatively assume that their adherents number in the tens of millions. You're right, no body cares about those religions.... especially if your a chauvinistic Christian who can't stand to acknowledge that Christianity is not pre-eminent among humanity. There's a whole world outside of "Jesus Land" when it comes to those "other" religions that no one supposedly cares about.
I know of Christians who reject the Trinity, ie, Oneness Pentecostals..... ( que " but they're not real Christians!!! )