RE: Top Seven Ways Christianity is Debunked By the Sciences
September 28, 2011 at 3:50 pm
(This post was last modified: September 28, 2011 at 3:55 pm by Zaki Aminu.)
(September 28, 2011 at 3:29 pm)Rhythm Wrote: See the as and then rows A and B? They're important. Snipping them and then forming some sort of quasi argument or criticism based on your edit, is a "less than accurate representation of the truth".
I'm not sure I know what you're on about. I don't think you do either.
I repeat: Does the definition of "God" by the dictionary say it means "Ultimate Reality" or not? I'm sure a simply "yes" or "no" is possible here. But take your time.
(September 28, 2011 at 3:50 pm)Zaki Aminu Wrote:(September 28, 2011 at 3:33 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Another "less than accurate representation of the truth"
I think that in the absence of knowledge about a subject, claiming such knowledge is deceitful. In other words, to bluster on about the details of an undiscovered continent is pointless. Now migrate that over to the concept of god, another undiscovered continent.
I believe you're the one claiming that you're ignorant about the subject of God - and so, by the standards you set should not be making any comments about it, should you?
But also youi haven't ascertained such absence of knowledge. You're just saying that what has been offered in evidence does not appeal to you. That does not make it incorrect. It may just be that you lack the ability to understand what is offered. In fact, the knowledge may be deliberately kept from you and still be accurate.
Whether you can understand the evidence for it or not is quite irrelevant of god, another undiscovered continent.
