(October 15, 2011 at 11:42 am)objectivitees Wrote: (Nothing on the Trinity)

Still waiting for you to explain the Trinity to me.

Tick tock.

*Plays theme to Jeapordy*

It's axiomatic Object. As a lahni-do I must presuppose the existence of the grape jelly creator. If you're going to question my axioms, I get to question yours. Can you provide evidence that the abrahamic god even exists?



I rest my case.

The trinity could only be dumber if it had been the quaternity.

(October 15, 2011 at 1:35 pm)Epimethean Wrote: The trinity could only be dumber if it had been the quaternity.

I've observed how Christians sometimes treat the Bible as if it were a god, so there you go.

I always that was the "infinity."


As in "Yes it is, infinity plus one!"

(October 15, 2011 at 12:36 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(October 15, 2011 at 11:42 am)objectivitees Wrote: (Nothing on the Trinity)

Still waiting for you to explain the Trinity to me.

Tick tock.

*Plays theme to Jeapordy*

Oh, then allow me to make myself clear... I am not going to distract myself from my purpose of getting a response from rhythm, by going down your all too obvious rabbit trail.

Or even clearer... I'm not going to respond to this, INTENTIONALLY.

To infinity plus one!

(October 15, 2011 at 1:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's axiomatic Object. As a lahni-do I must presuppose the existence of the grape jelly creator. If you're going to question my axioms, I get to question yours. Can you provide evidence that the abrahamic god even exists?



I rest my case.

You rest too soon. I am not questioning your axiom. I accept that it is your axiom without reservation. It is the rationality of your axiom I question.

You don't understand presuppositional arguments, do you?

Since I haven't questioned your axiom, you don't get to question (what you think) is mine.

Now, defend your proposition that Jelly is the creator.

To the Jelly's credit, it actually has created some full bellies, and in the trinity of the PBJ, it makes a hell of a good meal.

(October 15, 2011 at 2:25 pm)objectivitees Wrote: Oh, then allow me to make myself clear... I am not going to distract myself from my purpose of getting a response from rhythm, by going down your all too obvious rabbit trail.

Or even clearer... I'm not going to respond to this, INTENTIONALLY.

Well, if you remember how the topic came up, it's because you dismiss the Islamic god as being illogical and self-contradictory but the Trinitarian god, who is one person and yet three distinct people all at the same time, makes perfect sense.

I say this is "confirmation bias" but perhaps you have a reason to conclude that your god is so superior to all other concepts.

So do explain why the Triune god isn't self-contradictory and is the only possible god that could explain why we use logic or why there is morality.

We'll deal with the non-sequitur of a divine creator being necessary for there to be logic or morality later.

---

(October 15, 2011 at 2:29 pm)objectivitees Wrote: You don't understand presuppositional arguments, do you?

You, Stat and Ryft all like to play that card (and I think have on this thread). You sound like a whiney teenager crying "you don't understand me".

We understand the "argument" just fine. It's utter crap.

Christian apologists have no store of yet unknown evidence or artifacts. They can't perform the magic tricks that Jesus promised those of true faith would be able to perform (Mark 16:17-18 as an example). All they (you) have is the endlessly rehashed philoso-babble arguments, which, even if they were sound, would fall short of the burden of proof you'd need to justify your supernatural claims.

To repeat, here's how your argument works:

1. Realize you need an argument to believe your articles of faith and you have buggerall as far as any hard evidence goes.
2. Create a problem that doesn't exist by asking some abstract "why" question (why do we use logic, why do we have morality, etc.).
3. Create a contrived definition of your god that solves the problem that doesn't exist ("moral goodness is bound in the very nature of God" etc). Don't worry about offering any proof of your claims. Just use your bare assertions to prove your point.
4. Say GodWillsIt, GodDidIt, GodDoesIt, etc.
5. Dismiss all other gods as irrational but don't apply the same skepticism to your own god.
6. Throw around a bunch of Latin phrases. That always makes philoso-babble sound so sophisticated.