(August 5, 2010 at 1:26 am)Godschild Wrote: Sounds to me as though you just proved an absolute truth. Change is inevitable science has shown this to be true.

Oh please. That's like saying that you can prove an absolute truth by saying that there is no absolute truth. Nothing is absolute. Plus, you completely missed my point.

(August 4, 2010 at 10:52 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:

(August 4, 2010 at 10:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What if you changed the rules? Obviously you could do what you like. Your example fails. Your logic fails.

Then this arguement is going to delve into the assinine arguement of
"Well god is omnipotent so I win ha ha."

That isn't a platform to make any kind of valid arguement.

You just don't get it TDoA. You have no logical objections. Thankyou.

(June 20, 2010 at 1:01 pm)tavarish Wrote: It all sounds like a case of special pleading to me.

All religious faith is fundamentally based on special pleading. it's an inescapable and undeniable characteristic.

Religious faith is accepting testimonies without any evidence even though similar testimonies without evidence would not be accepted from any other religion.

Quote:even though similar testimonies without evidence would not be accepted from any other religion.

A/K/A the "our god is REAL but your god is FALSE" line of shit!

(August 4, 2010 at 9:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: <edit> I think you entered the thread TheDarkestOfAngels missing the point of the ongoing discussion. I'll ignore your comment and wait to see if tavarish can back up his statement about the conflict he sees between omniscience and omnipotence.

Please refer to pages 4-8 of this thread.

(August 5, 2010 at 2:13 am)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: That's like saying that you can prove an absolute truth by saying that there is no absolute truth. Nothing is absolute.

I say the statement: "There are absolute truths." is an absolute truth.

(August 5, 2010 at 5:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You just don't get it TDoA. You have no logical objections. Thankyou.

That's nice to know, but your willingness to accept my objections as logical isn't required.
You've offered nothing in the way of evidence of any kind that my statements are anything but logical except for statements like the one above and I'm not going to take your word for it.

(August 5, 2010 at 11:37 am)rjh4 Wrote: I say the statement: "There are absolute truths." is an absolute truth.

That's nice.

(August 5, 2010 at 1:14 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote: That's nice to know, but your willingness to accept my objections as logical isn't required.
You've offered nothing in the way of evidence of any kind that my statements are anything but logical except for statements like the one above and I'm not going to take your word for it.

TDoA. You butted into a conversation, not addressing the topic. You don't have any point to make on the topic in hand. Now can we get on please?

---

(August 5, 2010 at 11:36 am)tavarish Wrote: Please refer to pages 4-8 of this thread.

This thread has 4 pages. Please be specific.

(August 5, 2010 at 3:26 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: TDoA. You butted into a conversation, not addressing the topic. You don't have any point to make on the topic in hand. Now can we get on please?

The topic is about god: specifically, according to the OP's first post in this thread, about the following statement that Tavarish made:

Tavarish Wrote:I'd like to hear the best explanation of why an infinite regress is not possible, and preferably one that does not negate the qualities or necessity of the God in question at the same time.

and that statement is a response to the following article: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics...d_god.html

So, if you can tell me how being able to make the arguement that god doesn't or can't exist in the sense in which either you, a general sense, or the above article states he can exist, how have I been off-topic?

My answer is that science has no real need or evidentiary backing that makes necessary for such a creature to exist. Both you and the article in question make assumptions based on trying to fit god in the existing universe instead of using what we know as evidence of any such being's existence or influence on the universe.

I shouldn't really have to mention that using the bible to make any kind of scientific statement about anything (including god) is pointless.

(August 5, 2010 at 2:13 am)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:

(August 5, 2010 at 1:26 am)Godschild Wrote: Sounds to me as though you just proved an absolute truth. Change is inevitable science has shown this to be true.

Oh please. That's like saying that you can prove an absolute truth by saying that there is no absolute truth. Nothing is absolute. Plus, you completely missed my point.

I believe I understand your point very well, you are not the same today as you were yesterday some type of change has come about no matter how small and I said it would yesterday. Does this mean I'm able to see the future absolutely not, this came from scientific knowledge. What I stated yesterday is true today and will be tommorow and from now till the end of your days on this planet so yes it is absolute.