(March 2, 2010 at 2:12 pm)Watson Wrote: You misunderstand. He doesn't act lovingly because Hehas to, He acts lovingly because He is. It is within His nature to act lovingly.

Stee-rike three!

Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. You fail. You say it is his nature. I ask you why. You say it just is.

Great point. God operates within a nature and you gave absolutely no account for why that is, other than "it just is".

Again, let's recap.

You say God has a nature.
I ask why does he have this nature and why is he subject to such a nature, rather than any other?
You said "'cause that's the way it is".

This argument makes no sense. You didn't even say you don't know (which would have been perfectly fine and intellectually honest, btw), you tried to make the point that he just is. Even if he CHOSE to be the way he is, it would imply that he could theoretically act in a way that was outside of his nature.

(March 2, 2010 at 2:12 pm)Watson Wrote: God is transcendant.

Love is transcendant, as it is the only emotion which can actually be experienced between two individuals, rather than singularly toward another individual.

You don't have to talk out of your ass so much, your mouth will get rusty. Before you say "love is transcendent" and "God is transcendent", please define the term. Also, what about hate? indifference? Apathy? I'm pretty sure those conceptual transcendent emotions are felt between two or more people.

(March 2, 2010 at 2:12 pm)Watson Wrote: Go ddoes not have a nature that He operates under, He operates through His nature. This is like asking you why an atheist is you. It makes no fucking sense.

What you don't seem to understand is that your omnipotent God is subject to forces through which he operates. I asked you why he has this nature as opposed to any other.

More to the point, he has the power to create something which does not operate within his nature, which is quite simply an epic ball of clusterfuckery.

(March 2, 2010 at 2:12 pm)Watson Wrote:

(March 2, 2010 at 2:08 pm)tavarish Wrote: If he cannot act outside his nature, then his is subject to that nature. That also raises issues with omnipotence, but I digress.

You misunderstand. He doesn't act lovingly because Hehas to, He acts lovingly because He is. It is within His nature to act lovingly.

Quote:Please explain to me WHY he has this nature. You've dodged the question twice already. Asking me what I would do isn't telling me why God has a nature that he operates under. What dictates this nature?

God is transcendant.

Love is transcendant, as it is the only emotion which can actually be experienced [b]between two individuals, rather than singularly toward another individual.[/b]

Go ddoes not have a nature that He operates under, He operates through His nature. This is like asking you why an atheist is you. It makes no fucking sense.

Nonsense. People can mutually hate each other, people can be envious of each other, people can trust each other, people can hold each other in mutual contempt etc... You seem to think that because you assert that 'God is Love', and believe in god, this affords you some unique insight into the nature of love, that non-believers do not have.

I'm pretty sure that I have as good a grasp of love as most other human beings, so your continued implication in this thread that non-believers cannot truly understand such things is offensive and patronising.

Emotions have evolved precisely because they are felt between people, thus faciliting our co-operation.

Every time I write a response, there's a person after me that phrases it so much better than I could ever have.

You do a pretty good job too.

Another athiest romance blooms!

AF ...so many things to so many people *sighs*

(March 2, 2010 at 3:18 pm)tavarish Wrote: Every time I write a response, there's a person after me that phrases it so much better than I could ever have.

This happens to me all the time but it's so often the way, too late one thinks of what one 'should' have said. Sir Thomas More, for instance, burned alive for refusing to recant his Catholicism, must have been kicking himself, as the flames licked higher, that it never occurred to him to say, "I recant my Catholicism."

Tavarish Wrote:you tried to make the point that he just is

Although I agree with you entirely... it should be noted that everything "just is" prior to questioning it. It is entirely pointless to use that which is true by necessity (example: if a god exists... then he exists. Until we can ask "why" he exists... he "just is")... because it doesn't get anywhere.

Hence your questions are very good questions that Watson continues to "dodge" by repeating tautology. It's true by necessity... it answers nothing by repeating it.

Logic itself "just is"... but as it can be used on the "God concept": the "God concept" cannot escape by the same route as logic.

(March 2, 2010 at 3:13 pm)amw79 Wrote: Nonsense. People can mutually hate each other.

I'm pretty sure me and bozo had a mutual hatred of each other, which probably explains why he doesn't come here anymore. Then again, he was a socialist moron who thought I was a racist.

(March 2, 2010 at 7:49 pm)Darwinian Wrote:

(March 2, 2010 at 3:18 pm)tavarish Wrote: Every time I write a response, there's a person after me that phrases it so much better than I could ever have.

This happens to me all the time but it's so often the way, too late one thinks of what one 'should' have said. Sir Thomas More, for instance, burned alive for refusing to recant his Catholicism, must have been kicking himself, as the flames licked higher, that it never occurred to him to say, "I recant my Catholicism."

Blackadder FTW.

(March 2, 2010 at 7:46 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Another athiest romance blooms!

AF ...so many things to so many people *sighs*

The funniest part of this post is the fact that Tackattack gave it a thumbs up. Birds of a feather huh? I still like you too Frodo, even though you are a knuckle dragging, dropkick, moron.

hugs,
Rhizo