(April 10, 2014 at 8:06 am)FreeTony Wrote: I love how Theists say such a thing isn't possible, yet in the bible God is constantly coming down and interacting with people.

Theist logic is:
1. God exists
2. I can't see/smell/hear/feel God
Therefore God can't be felt/seen/heard etc.

It might fool a young child, but that's about it.

Omnipotent and omniscient being knows how to prove his existence to everybody in the world today and is capable of doing it. So either he does not exist. Or hides from us deliberately.

(April 10, 2014 at 8:04 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 10, 2014 at 7:09 am)Esquilax Wrote: What's the difference between your logical apprehension of god, and any of those?

One is logically sound, the other is not.

As I discuss that I find that others cannot fault it, so I'm lead to believe that what I understand is correct.

others can't fault the great "me".
"proof", that the true "great me" is ME

I am reeeaaaalllllll!!!!!!

---

(April 10, 2014 at 8:08 am)tor Wrote:

(April 10, 2014 at 8:06 am)FreeTony Wrote: I love how Theists say such a thing isn't possible, yet in the bible God is constantly coming down and interacting with people.

Theist logic is:
1. God exists
2. I can't see/smell/hear/feel God
Therefore God can't be felt/seen/heard etc.

It might fool a young child, but that's about it.

Omnipotent and omniscient being knows how to prove his existence to everybody in the world today and is capable of doing it. So either he does not exist. Or hides from us deliberately.

You left out one line of this fucked logic. Fuked logic is omni anything. It isn't what they say it is. It cant do anything, but it may do way more than we can today.

This thread should be titled 'proof of a christian god as they are teaching today."

stating it is "hiding" is like stating the electron was hiding in 1600. Was it hiding or were we just stupid?

(April 10, 2014 at 8:04 am)fr0d0 Wrote: One is logically sound, the other is not.

As I discuss that I find that others cannot fault it, so I'm lead to believe that what I understand is correct.

Would you agree with me that you can have logically sound ideas that, nevertheless, aren't true?

Besides, logic only works if the premises you feed into it are reflective of reality, and though I don't know what premises you're basing your outlook on, it's probable that we don't yet have a sufficient understanding of the universe to even have suitable premises.

Understanding of the physical universe is subsidiary at best to the subject of God. You're trying to close gaps that my faith doesn't occupy.

Both of us could have sound logic that could potentially be incorrect, yes. I respect that to the best of your ability, your logical conclusions are your best endeavour.

(April 10, 2014 at 8:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Understanding of the physical universe is subsidiary at best to the subject of God. You're trying to close gaps that my faith doesn't occupy.

Both of us could have sound logic that could potentially be incorrect, yes. I respect that to the best of your ability, your logical conclusions are your best endeavour.

I guess my next question is, what's the thought process one goes through to arrive at the god conclusion, in that case?

Pick a question, address it, conclude, move on to the next.

(April 10, 2014 at 8:52 am)Esquilax Wrote: I guess my next question is, what's the thought process one goes through to arrive at the god conclusion, in that case?

Here is one "logical" line of "thought" ...

"I'm scared of dying, therefore, this cannot be it"

All religions which gained traction feed onto that.

Fear of death is the greatest enemy of the conscious mind (apparently for many).

Once we replace words "fear of death" with "self-importance" in the previous sentence, we are free (but not everyone is capable of doing that) ...

Nobody would ever give a damn about Jesus, if there was no promise of everlasting life. Period. End of story

(April 10, 2014 at 9:22 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Pick a question, address it, conclude, move on to the next.

That is really vague. So let me rephrase: what led you to that conclusion?

You asked me for the thought process, which I think is the best way you could ask. We know we disagree on the detail.

(April 10, 2014 at 11:06 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You asked me for the thought process, which I think is the best way you could ask. We know we disagree on the detail.

Are you afraid of telling us?