(May 4, 2010 at 12:05 pm)Watson Wrote: I just spilt milk all over my computer desk, oh no! Hey, look at that splash; it looks like a train station in Germany and I'll take it as such, but it's literally just a big puddle of milk.

God exists sort of in that sense. In a metaphor for Himself and literally as the ways in which He is manifested. He's God, and you must admit that if He exists, He can be anything at all.

Even non-existent???

Everything exists, on some level, and on some plain. Non-exstance is a lie!

Everything exists. Correct. Otherwise it wouldn't be a thing. Because something non-existent isn't a thing, it isn't anything at all.

But existing as a metaphor and existing literally are two different things. If God literally exists, he can be then used as a metaphor for other things. But you need evidence that he literally exists first.

I can't understand why you believe God exists literally. A metaphor I'm fine with but that's completely different to an actual god.

EvF

(May 4, 2010 at 12:05 pm)Watson Wrote: I just spilt milk all over my computer desk, oh no! Hey, look at that splash; it looks like a train station in Germany and I'll take it as such, but it's literally just a big puddle of milk.

You thinking the milk is something else doesn't change the fact that it's milk on your desk. It cannot be milk and not-milk at the same time. This is a logical contradiction.

(May 4, 2010 at 12:05 pm)Watson Wrote: God exists sort of in that sense. In a metaphor for Himself and literally as the ways in which He is manifested. He's God, and you must admit that if He exists, He can be anything at all.

You can't be physical and conceptual at the same time, genius.

I have an apple. It is physical.

I can think of an apple. This is conceptual.

They are NOT the same thing.

You can't exist literally and then also be a metaphor for yourself, just like the apple can't exist as a physical entity and a concept at the same time - It's logically invalid.

(May 3, 2010 at 12:13 pm)Watson Wrote: During my change from Atheism to Christianity, I began to notice things that confused me and startled me, that I could not explain from an atheistic, materialistic, or scientific viewpoint. Believe me, I did try to do so. I looked for refutation and explanation, and found none. Only when I applied God to the scenario did things begin to make sense. And with it, a lot more in my life began to fall into place as well. Keep in mind, I still considered myself Atheist up to a point, but there came a moment when it just was not possible to explain what was happening in this way any longer.

My experience is sort of similar. Big revelation: I'm a former atheist. It's the first time I've said this. I just didn't think the concept of God made any sense. But after further examination, I came to the conclusion that the concept of No God made even less sense.

(May 4, 2010 at 12:27 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(May 3, 2010 at 12:13 pm)Watson Wrote: During my change from Atheism to Christianity, I began to notice things that confused me and startled me, that I could not explain from an atheistic, materialistic, or scientific viewpoint. Believe me, I did try to do so. I looked for refutation and explanation, and found none. Only when I applied God to the scenario did things begin to make sense. And with it, a lot more in my life began to fall into place as well. Keep in mind, I still considered myself Atheist up to a point, but there came a moment when it just was not possible to explain what was happening in this way any longer.

My experience is sort of similar. Big revelation: I'm a former atheist. It's the first time I've said this. I just didn't think the idea of God made any sense. But after further examination, I came to the conclusion that the idea of No God made even less sense.

With all this abundant evidence in support of God, I can understand.



...

How does that work?

By default, in the sense of by Occam's Razor, it makes sense that God is more complex because it's postulating another entity. Then you go into the matter of God supposedly creating a universe, and being all powerful, all knowable, etc., - this makes him very complex indeed. And without an unimaginably gargantuan explanation that I can't even conceive of mentally, without such a near-impossible amount and high standard of evidence - it's practically infinitely more probable that this universe is how it is without God, is it not?

EvF

(May 4, 2010 at 12:27 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(May 3, 2010 at 12:13 pm)Watson Wrote: During my change from Atheism to Christianity, I began to notice things that confused me and startled me, that I could not explain from an atheistic, materialistic, or scientific viewpoint. Believe me, I did try to do so. I looked for refutation and explanation, and found none. Only when I applied God to the scenario did things begin to make sense. And with it, a lot more in my life began to fall into place as well. Keep in mind, I still considered myself Atheist up to a point, but there came a moment when it just was not possible to explain what was happening in this way any longer.

My experience is sort of similar. Big revelation: I'm a former atheist. It's the first time I've said this. I just didn't think the idea of God made any sense. But after further examination, I came to the conclusion that the idea of No God made even less sense.

Interesting.

And just how were you turned into a believer?

was it:

A: because you had a personal tragedy and embraced the church for comfort.
B: met a cute girly who was relgious and got you thinking.
C: You came accross something that 'you just didnt understand'
D: Head injury
E: none of the above

(May 4, 2010 at 12:20 pm)tavarish Wrote: You can't exist literally and then also be a metaphor for yourself, just like the apple can't exist as a physical entity and a concept at the same time - It's logically invalid.

Wrong. I can think of an apple that literally exists- it is conceptual in my mind, physical in reality. Similarly, in my mind the apple can be a metaphor for something else, but I acknowledge that physically it is another thing entirely.

@EvF: God is actually quite simple, so I would contend your argument that He must be complex.

And, my evidence that God literally exists comes with my understanding of the metaphor- the metaphor's existance is proof of the literal existance, being that the literal is the universe, life, love, and everything here, all of which is a metaphor for God.

Logically, I can't always explain where I see the metaphor, which is why I like coming here because you guys actually challenge me to try harder in seeing it.

(May 4, 2010 at 2:35 pm)Watson Wrote: Wrong. I can think of an apple that literally exists- it is conceptual in my mind, physical in reality. Similarly, in my mind the apple can be a metaphor for something else, but I acknowledge that physically it is another thing entirely.

And how the hell am I wrong for saying:

[the] apple can't exist as a physical entity and a concept at the same time

The physical apple and the concept of the apple in your understanding are not one and the same.

Please proofread your text for context before you reply next time.

(May 4, 2010 at 2:35 pm)Watson Wrote: @EvF: God is actually quite simple, so I would contend your argument that He must be complex.

Yes, A being that willed the universe into existence is simple. Who cares if it raises way more questions than explanations?

(May 4, 2010 at 2:35 pm)Watson Wrote: And, my evidence that God literally exists comes with my understanding of the metaphor- the metaphor's existance is proof of the literal existance, being that the literal is the universe, life, love, and everything here, all of which is a metaphor for God.

You literally haven't said anything. I can have a concept of a fire-breathing dragon, that doesn't mean that dragons necessarily exist.

(May 4, 2010 at 2:35 pm)Watson Wrote: Logically, I can't always explain where I see the metaphor, which is why I like coming here because you guys actually challenge me to try harder in seeing it.

You haven't used logic at any point in time, why start now?