1. I didn't mention evidence.
2. If I did I would be allowed to because you failed to respond to my last post in our debate for so long, that Adrian just closed it in the end.
Additionally: you have claimed before that I said I didn't want to continue the debate any further. But I say that I never said such a thing... and I asked if you could perhaps provide a quotation where I ever said that - because I, furthermore, never would say anything like that... I never agree to disagree unless the other person brings the whole. 'agree to disagree' notion up first. You know what I'm like.
3. My statements are 'obviously wrong'? All I am trying to understand is what you actually mean when you say God 'is' but his existence is irrelevant. By definition how can he 'be' if he does not exist? That is a contradiction.
God cannot 'be'... he cannot be a thing at all that 'just is' if he doesn't exist. For something to be something that 'just is' (or for something to be anything at all!) - it by definition... has to exist.
If God does not exist then there is no God to just be. So how does it make any sense whatsoever to say that he 'just is'? You say my statements make no sense... but all I am doing is pointing out what seems to me to be a complete contradiction in language... and so I'm trying to understand the actual meaning behind what you are at least trying (it seems?) to say...
4.
Are you backing out again? I am discussing. How can you say we will learn nothing if you don't know what's round the corner? I'm happy to continue the discussion... are you?
EvF
2. If I did I would be allowed to because you failed to respond to my last post in our debate for so long, that Adrian just closed it in the end.
Additionally: you have claimed before that I said I didn't want to continue the debate any further. But I say that I never said such a thing... and I asked if you could perhaps provide a quotation where I ever said that - because I, furthermore, never would say anything like that... I never agree to disagree unless the other person brings the whole. 'agree to disagree' notion up first. You know what I'm like.
3. My statements are 'obviously wrong'? All I am trying to understand is what you actually mean when you say God 'is' but his existence is irrelevant. By definition how can he 'be' if he does not exist? That is a contradiction.
God cannot 'be'... he cannot be a thing at all that 'just is' if he doesn't exist. For something to be something that 'just is' (or for something to be anything at all!) - it by definition... has to exist.
If God does not exist then there is no God to just be. So how does it make any sense whatsoever to say that he 'just is'? You say my statements make no sense... but all I am doing is pointing out what seems to me to be a complete contradiction in language... and so I'm trying to understand the actual meaning behind what you are at least trying (it seems?) to say...
4.
fr0d0 Wrote:I've explained that to you before so I'll see if you can figure it out on your own this time, otherwise what's the point of discussion if we learn nothing?
Are you backing out again? I am discussing. How can you say we will learn nothing if you don't know what's round the corner? I'm happy to continue the discussion... are you?
EvF