Fairly certain none of that makes any actual sense, most of it just begs more questions. Probably why I overlooked it, I was looking for answers.
What a waste of time, oh well.

lmao

Talk about cop outs

Cop outs? Dude this has been like you presenting a box with a question mark drawn on it, you going it contains all the answers, us nagging you to show us whats in it for about a week and then you finally opening it only for their to be absolutely nothing inside.
Then you turn around, look at our disappointed, pissed off and slightly insulted faces and whisper "magic. -.-".

I never said "all the answers". I've answered those questions regarding them. If you have no questions don't complain.

(July 29, 2012 at 6:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I never said "all the answers". I've answered those questions regarding them. If you have no questions don't complain.

Yeah, forgot I was talking to you for a second. By "all of the answers" I mean "all of the answers requested" as opposed to literally "all of the answers in the universe, EVER". Thought this was obvious but whatever.

"met·a·phys·i·cal   [met-uh-fiz-i-kuhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
pertaining to or of the nature of metaphysics.
2.
Philosophy .
a.
concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth.
b.
concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, as being, time, or substance.
3.
highly abstract, subtle, or abstruse.
4.
designating or pertaining to the poetry of an early group of 17th-century English poets, notably John Donne, whose characteristic style is highly intellectual and philosophical and features intensive use of ingenious conceits and turns of wit.
5.
Archaic . imaginary or fanciful."

Metaphysics is a philosophy with no shred of evidence to back it up. If you had come to your position logically you would not be able to use metaphysics to back it up but thats exactly what you do. You take the Bible, faith, philosophical claims of the metaphysical and thats it.
How can you claim your position is logical based on those?

Hows that for a question?

(July 29, 2012 at 6:40 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: If you had come to your position logically you would not be able to use metaphysics to back it up but thats exactly what you do.

(July 29, 2012 at 6:57 pm)Rayaan Wrote:

(July 29, 2012 at 6:40 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: If you had come to your position logically you would not be able to use metaphysics to back it up but thats exactly what you do.

Rayaan, you are now officially on my list of awesome Muslims. Why I did not find that picture before now is beyond me, now I have found it I feel complete.

On-

"All conclusions lead back to god." -and it's many variations.

This one annoys me, it annoys me not because it is evasive, not because it is repeated ad naus by those inclined to do so, but because it is empty. People who are otherwise capable of forming and communicating thoughts seem to trip all over themselves as soon as they've let this one slip. It means nothing, and yet it is passed back and forth like conversational currency.

When a person finds that their only response to a question is a platitude, it is time for that person to seriously consider whether or not they should be the one explaining whatever it is they're attempting to communicate in the first place. It seems to me Frodo, that what you mean to say -and what you should say- here, is that whenever you start to think about things like positivity, you personally conclude god, you can''t help but imagine that somehow god is involved, you lack the imagination to envision a world in which a god was not involved (and I don't mean that as an insult, I mean that exactly as it, you simply can't bring yourself to imagine it). That god, to you, seems like a good reason, or a logical reason to do or be this or that. This does not mean that "all conclusions lead to god" this simply means that whenever you get to thinking about god- you conclude god. Well no shit.......you believe in god.

No shit indeed Rhythm. Given God, reasoning back to God follows. Same with given Not God.

No I don't mean to say that I think about God when I come across something positive. I already attribute creation of the world as a positive that came from God. Everything fits this model, where I don't see that it fits any other model.

If an atheist position was to similarly assume a positive cause, then it would be the same. Personallly the positive cause argument is the only one that computes for me. Other arguments: no cause, constant existance, do not.

This is my understanding of God, and it is pretty thoroughly defined in the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas. So for you to refer to the point as an empty plattitude would be incorrect. It's actually based upon specific reasoning.

Yes, the specific reasoning Rhythm outlined ...