Grains Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 If that's the basis of your argument, then what about all of the other gods like Zeus, Thor, Baal, Apollo, and the countless others? I would like to revisit this because I was thinking about it and I put together some rather interesting thoughts or at least they were to me. All of these "Gods" mentioned have some physical/"material" trait associated with them. They all have something that is from the material world that is bound to them. Examples:Thor-Red hair, beard, hammer, lightningZeus-with a thunderbolt leveled in his raised right hand or seated in majesty.Apollo- archer, medicine, music, poetry, etc.Baal- sculptures, ancestry I think this is crucial that we examine this point because when I was searching through the net on each of these particular gods it was amazing the pictures, sculptures, etc on them defining their traits. In fact the latter 3 resemble that of the body of a human in their art that portrays them. So I think it is interesting because I think these "Gods" all had something "material" that could define them. Where as the God I speak of has none of this. He exist outside the material world and is not bound by anything that defines him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 So, your basic argument is that your god makes more sense because there is zero evidence or descriptive attributes about its nature? That's retarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grains Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 So, your basic argument is that your god makes more sense because there is zero evidence or descriptive attributes about its nature? That's retarded. Infinitenow do you always come out with guns blazing? :phones: It was not an argument more of a thought. But if you would like to debate it I will play. I guess yes. I posted the quote: Science is limited to the physical (material) world and therefore has no knowledge, function or authority outside those bounds. Then yes I would argue that when these gods were created they had some type of material fixated with them. As "God" is not material, it would be impossible for us to assign traits/appearences to him. He does not have them. He is "God." Therefore the creators of Zeus, Thor, etc were mearly making a superhuman by attaching a human form to some type of super natural unexplained force at their time (lightining, sun, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 You assume, a priori, the existence of god. Conclusions grounded in false premises are most often also false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grains Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 You assume, a priori, the existence of god. Conclusions grounded in false premises are most often also false. It would have been more entertaining with somebody who would have played along but o well. I don't assume the existence of God. They are not false premises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 It would have been more entertaining with somebody who would have played along but o well. I don't assume the existence of God. Actually, yes. You did. Then yes I would argue that when these gods were created they had some type of material fixated with them. As "God" is not material, it would be impossible for us to assign traits/appearences to him. He does not have them. He is "God." Inherent in each of those statements is the beforehand assumption that god exists. You have no proof supporting that contention, so the rest of your arguments are without foundation. You even went so far as to give definition to this thing which, according to your own words, is without definition. All I'm doing is pointing out to you how internally inconsistent your approach is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grains Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Actually, yes. You did. Inherent in each of those statements is the beforehand assumption that god exists. You have no proof supporting that contention, so the rest of your arguments are without foundation. You even went so far as to give definition to this thing which, according to your own words, is without definition. All I'm doing is pointing out to you how internally inconsistent your approach is. And like in the other thread I was in and we were talking and I just posted at, your answer was that the "big bang" happened and then time and space evolved. Well how did that happen. Please show evidence. As you mentioned big bang created time and motion and science was created from that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 And like in the other thread I was in and we were talking and I just posted at, your answer was that the "big bang" happened and then time and space evolved. Well how did that happen. Please show evidence. As you mentioned big bang created time and motion and science was created from that. And you can take that up in the thread about the big bang. This thread's about the existence of God for which there is ZERO supporting evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grains Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 And you can take that up in the thread about the big bang. This thread's about the existence of God for which there is ZERO supporting evidence. Gotcha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Gotcha! Along with your delusion, it is quite apparent that you have not watched the video shared by Reason at post #486 of this thread. You are making no sense. If you watch the following, this might provide one avenue for your posts to improve: believingtheunbelievable.mov http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3884451176644991836&q=the+clash+between+faith+and+reason&ei=2dNySJy5EqWCrALjneCGAQ You have no legs to stand on in this argument. You've simply been reasserting your belief, and not addressing the challenges to it. I know it's scary, but that doesn't mean our challenges are without merit. Watch the above. Let's start there. And like in the other thread I was in and we were talking and I just posted at, your answer was that the "big bang" happened and then time and space evolved. Btw... would you be so kind as to show exactly where I said this? It would appear my memory is failing, as I do not recall making any such claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grains Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Along with your delusion, it is quite apparent that you have not watched the video shared by Reason at post #486 of this thread. You are making no sense. If you watch the following, this might provide one avenue for your posts to improve: believingtheunbelievable.mov You have no legs to stand on in this argument. You've simply been reasserting your belief, and not addressing the challenges to it. I know it's scary, but that doesn't mean our challenges are without merit. Watch the above. Let's start there. Btw... would you be so kind as to show exactly where I said this? It would appear my memory is failing, as I do not recall making any such claim. I beg your pardon but I know I am correct. Please move to the big bang forum as I have moved my question there for "no evidence on big bang" "life before science" , "etc" and the rest of my wonderful questions I await proof/evidence/live examples/ etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 I accept your concession that you cannot support your points in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grains Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 I accept your concession that you cannot support your points in this thread. Your really hate that you said it was in a downward trend don't you. I concede nothing to what I know is God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Our exchanges in other threads have zero relevance to this one (with the slight exception of them demonstrating your consistent inability to understand the context of a discussion and successfully argue your assertions). Can you or can you not support your assertion that god exists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grains Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Our exchanges in other threads have zero relevance to this one (with the slight exception of them demonstrating your consistent inability to understand the context of a discussion and successfully argue your assertions). Can you or can you not support your assertion that god exists? Understood. I went to another thread to explore other minds and there you were so lets just keep it here. I won't venture out. I have supported my assertion that god exist. God is not "material" therefore science cannot assert proof or evidence to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 I have supported my assertion that god exist. God is not "material" therefore science cannot assert proof or evidence to him. That's not support. That's conjecture. You have said, "since this thing I call god is not material" it is real. Are you honestly struggling to understand why you're not being taken seriously? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grains Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 That's not support. That's conjecture. You have said, "since this thing I call god is not material" it is real. Are you honestly struggling to understand why you're not being taken seriously? I never said it was real. Please show me where I said it was real. I said God I know to be true. I am not struggling to understand why I am not being taken seriously you are making false presumptions to aid your rebuttal. I am debating with atheist. Obviously they won't agree. Duh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.