(February 14, 2014 at 3:13 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: And how does this destroy atheism exactly?

Have you read through the continuation?

Is this still foreplay?

(February 14, 2014 at 3:09 pm)jideoni charles Wrote: Many arguments have been put up for proving the existence of God - especially the 'design-designer' argument.

And historically, not one of them has been successful.

(February 14, 2014 at 3:09 pm)jideoni charles Wrote: Many arguments have beeOn the other hand, at the base of the numerous arguments against the existence of God is the incompatibility of the omnipotence of God with His benevolence i.e. if there is God, the God must be all-powerful and good;

Whereas, the apparent existence of evil denies God of either of the attributes. And so, the God loses His divinity.

Whereas, there is God, i.e. the Supreme Intelligence, i.e. the Absolute - perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, just and unchanging.

If God has the above attributes, there can never be room for evil. Where God is omnipresent, evil will be 'omniabsent'. Where God is omnipotent and benevolent, evil remains non-existent.

The so-called evil is not evil in the real sense of the term. What we call evil is good, i.e. painful good; while the opposite is the pleasurable good. No solution without problem; No peace without war. Each effort spells advance.
(To be continued)

There's also a lack of evidence to support the claim <God exists>, no compelling argument that God's existence is necessary, and, as near as I can tell: All the present arguments for God's existence are Arguments from Ignorance.

"I don't know :. God Did It."

Which historically, has been knocked down like dominoes with the rise of rational thought, and the rejection of superstition.

Of course, there are still those who believe aliens built the pyramids, and that the earth was created in 6 days; The people who just can't stand not to "know everything," so they accept a supernatural explanation rather than saying "I don't know" and deal with their fear of the unknown like adults.

(February 14, 2014 at 5:21 pm)jideoni charles Wrote:

(February 14, 2014 at 3:13 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: And how does this destroy atheism exactly?

Have you read through the continuation?

Yes, erm, but it didn't contain an argument, only exposition.

Quote:Whereas, there is God, i.e. the Supreme Intelligence, i.e. the Absolute - perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, just and unchanging.

Well that's got us precisely nowhere. All we have is a statement.

Now prove it.

Start with the "there is a God" part and work from there. We can get to his supposed properties once you have established him.

(February 14, 2014 at 3:14 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Thread closed pending thread merge.

---

Threads merged.

@Jideoni Charles, this is not the first time you have been asked to not create multiple threads with the same topic.

Do it again, and it may well be your last.

I am so sorry for the inconvenience this must have caused the technical crew.

I think I need some enlightenment about how I can make a single thread exceed the 1,000 letter-count limit.

Anyone to put me through?

Regrets please.

---

(February 14, 2014 at 5:24 pm)Alex K Wrote: Is this still foreplay?

Foreplay and 'hindplay'.

(February 14, 2014 at 5:35 pm)jideoni charles Wrote: I think I need some enlightenment about how I can make a single thread exceed the 1,000 letter-count limit.

What limit? First I've heard of it.

Ok so far we have: unchangeable laws of nature imply god. Sounds like a non sequitur, why would it imply God?

The perspective from which I have approached the problem is far from the erstwhile superstitious and spurious stand-points.

I have also made room for others' contributions for or against my postulate.

I still maintain my stand that my argument stays valid until proven to the contrary.

---

(February 14, 2014 at 5:30 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(February 14, 2014 at 5:21 pm)jideoni charles Wrote: Have you read through the continuation?

Yes, erm, but it didn't contain an argument, only exposition.

But an exposition is solid enough as a respectable base for argument.

(February 14, 2014 at 6:00 pm)jideoni charles Wrote: The perspective from which I have approached the problem is far from the erstwhile superstitious and spurious stand-points.

I have also made room for others' contributions for or against my postulate.

I still maintain my stand that my argument stays valid until proven to the contrary.

---

(February 14, 2014 at 5:30 pm)Alex K Wrote: Yes, erm, but it didn't contain an argument, only exposition.

But an exposition is solid enough as a respectable base for argument.

You had an argument