RE: A good reason not to believe in God
March 2, 2011 at 5:11 pm
(This post was last modified: March 2, 2011 at 5:18 pm by fr0d0.)
No Evie... if you surmise that there are two of him, then you must equally surmise that because we state that a glass of milk is 100% milk and 100% liquid that there are indeed 2 glasses, one full of milk and one full of liquid. Such is the illogicality of your summation.
Sorry VOID I've lost the thread of our discussion there. Your dismissal of Divine Simplicity is completely lacking in detail. ie I can't consider it.
@ Scarlet: I'm tired of our dance. I have no idea where you're going and have lost interest in following you around this particular may pole.
@ VOID : I don't see how you're concluding, with the other two here, that an atemporal entity and a physical being would occupy the same space. Are you using science to draw that conclusion? It seems illogical to me.
Sorry VOID I've lost the thread of our discussion there. Your dismissal of Divine Simplicity is completely lacking in detail. ie I can't consider it.
@ Scarlet: I'm tired of our dance. I have no idea where you're going and have lost interest in following you around this particular may pole.
@ VOID : I don't see how you're concluding, with the other two here, that an atemporal entity and a physical being would occupy the same space. Are you using science to draw that conclusion? It seems illogical to me.
