RE: The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept
November 10, 2011 at 6:49 pm
(This post was last modified: November 10, 2011 at 6:50 pm by fr0d0.)
(November 10, 2011 at 1:00 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote:You. It was an insult and I wanted to get it removed. Apologies.(November 9, 2011 at 6:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You're illiterate Cpn.Me or my argument Frods?
(November 10, 2011 at 1:00 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote:Thank you(November 9, 2011 at 6:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes you said 3 times that I was "begging the question" but not once have you shown how.And in the first post (#3) i said why and repeated this in my last response in an informal manner. I'll express it more formally if its helps:
(November 10, 2011 at 1:00 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: 1. Fr0d0 identifies Gods primary attribute as dietyIn Christianity 'God' is not the only deity. He's the only way. The only correct one to be worshipped; but by no means the only one.
2. Given xtian theism is a montheism the proposition that god = diety is identical to god = god, as xtianity also identifies god as "The Diety" ie the only diety.
(November 10, 2011 at 1:00 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: 3. Therefore Fr0d0 identifies god primary attribute as god.False
You also try to limit words by trying to limit it to Xtianity. So that's a double failure.
What besides man is homosapien? Only man. So therefore man = man?
Again a fail.
(November 10, 2011 at 1:00 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: We are led to believe that he is not material, not corporeal, not visible etc etc. But we can name evetything else in reality with positive primary attributes.So you are assessing God on his material properties?
And then dissmissing him on his lack of material properties?
I see a gross violation of logic going on there. Nothing complicated needed to dismiss it, it's very plainly obvious.