I seem to remember something about pigeons....

You've had millennia to think this shit through, yet all evidence points to a continual invention.

(June 2, 2016 at 3:08 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote: Sure - how is any of that anything other than word salad, designed to confuse simple people with outlandish language,

People like you have no integrity. You defend a logical argument that you say disproves god and then when someone who actually knows good philosophy destroys your schoolboy objection you pout and cry "word salad."

(June 2, 2016 at 2:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 2, 2016 at 2:21 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: I know that the moon is orbiting the Earth, doesn't mean I'm on the moon.

You're thinking of it in terms of the material world though.  

Remember, we believe God is in an entirely different dimension all together and isn't bound by the laws of time or space. No, God isn't "physically present" in your butt hole as you would be or wouldn't be on the moon. You know the moon is orbiting the Earth, but you can't see all of it all at once at all times and don't know what is happening on it at every second, so that's not comparable either. We believe God is a much more advanced being than us and so He is capable of things that we cannot even fully comprehend. Just as a chicken cannot comprehend concepts that we as humans can.

If God exists in such a way that it is beyond comprehension, then I don't know how you know that or how you can begin to make such claims about God's capabilities if you yourself can't comprehend what those capabilities are, or how you can believe you know anything about God if it is entirely unknowable. Those capabilities, as they've been described, are that God exists outside of the universe while being present in all parts of the universe, without being physically present in the universe while being capable of interacting with the universe while still not existing within it. At this point, what difference is there between incomprehensible and incoherent?

The way I interpret it is this: either Hell is a separation from god, destroying his omnipresence, OR god is present even in Hell. If the latter is the case, this means that God watches and observes the billions in Hell burning and crying and writhing in agony, without taking action to save them. Which by extension means that God is either a) not all-loving, as he will not save those experiencing eternal pain and suffering, or b) he cannot act, thus making him not all-powerful.

(June 2, 2016 at 3:13 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I seem to remember something about pigeons....

You've had millennia to think this shit through, yet all evidence points to a continual invention.

Continual invention implies adding new things. I do not think that is the case. 

Couple of reasons some doctrines might have changed over the past 2000 years:

• Advances in philosophy in general and philosophy of religion specifically.
  
• Advances in natural theology and its importance.
  
• Advances in our understanding of the universe and our place in it. 
  
• Decentralization of theological thought. Now we have many more sects and denominations that bring out variations in thought and prompt reexamination of ideas.
  

There are some doctrines that cannot be changed lest Christianity ceases to be Christianity (for example the doctrine of Salvation). The one under scrutiny in this thread probably hasn't changed much other than to fill in what it means and/or to articulate it in more sophisticated language.

(June 2, 2016 at 3:25 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote:

(June 2, 2016 at 2:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You're thinking of it in terms of the material world though.  

Remember, we believe God is in an entirely different dimension all together and isn't bound by the laws of time or space. No, God isn't "physically present" in your butt hole as you would be or wouldn't be on the moon. You know the moon is orbiting the Earth, but you can't see all of it all at once at all times and don't know what is happening on it at every second, so that's not comparable either. We believe God is a much more advanced being than us and so He is capable of things that we cannot even fully comprehend. Just as a chicken cannot comprehend concepts that we as humans can.

If God exists in such a way that it is beyond comprehension, then I don't know how you know that or how you can begin to make such claims about God's capabilities if you yourself can't comprehend what those capabilities are, or how you can believe you know anything about God if it is entirely unknowable. Those capabilities, as they've been described, are that God exists outside of the universe while being present in all parts of the universe, without being physically present in the universe while being capable of interacting with the universe while still not existing within it. At this point, what difference is there between incomprehensible and incoherent?

If there is a God, it only makes perfect sense that he is much more advanced than us and is capable of things and concepts that we cannot comprehend. Just as creatures below us cannot comprehend concepts that we can. I don't know why you would think that's so strange. 

As for how I can believe in God, that would be a topic for another thread, if I wanted to get into it... which I'd rather not.

(June 2, 2016 at 3:42 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 2, 2016 at 3:25 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: If God exists in such a way that it is beyond comprehension, then I don't know how you know that or how you can begin to make such claims about God's capabilities if you yourself can't comprehend what those capabilities are, or how you can believe you know anything about God if it is entirely unknowable. Those capabilities, as they've been described, are that God exists outside of the universe while being present in all parts of the universe, without being physically present in the universe while being capable of interacting with the universe while still not existing within it. At this point, what difference is there between incomprehensible and incoherent?

If there is a God, it only makes perfect sense that he is much more advanced than us and is capable of things and concepts that we cannot comprehend. Just as creatures below us cannot comprehend concepts that we can. I don't know why you would think that's so strange. 

As for how I can believe in God, that would be a topic for another thread, if I wanted to get into it... which I'd rather not.

While a chicken can't "understand" a human, a human is both observable and beholden to the same natural laws as the chicken.
Also I don't see how not making sense is a good argument for God's existence if you intend to affirm its existence.

(June 2, 2016 at 3:46 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote:

(June 2, 2016 at 3:42 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If there is a God, it only makes perfect sense that he is much more advanced than us and is capable of things and concepts that we cannot comprehend. Just as creatures below us cannot comprehend concepts that we can. I don't know why you would think that's so strange. 

As for how I can believe in God, that would be a topic for another thread, if I wanted to get into it... which I'd rather not.

While a chicken can't "understand" a human, a human is both observable and beholden to the same natural laws as the chicken.

Sure, but that's not the argument I was making. I never said chickens are exactly to us as we are to God. I was simply showing that it's not unreasonable to say we don't have the mental capacity to understand certain concepts pertaining to a higher being, since it is the case with the creatures in our own world. 

Quote:Also I don't know how not making sense is a good argument for God's existence.

Hm? I didn't realize I was giving any argument for God's existence, much less using "not making sense" as one lol. Merely trying to explain what we have in mind when we use the term omnipresent in reference to God.

double