So you completely dodged my points about how your statement "God's existence is irrelevant" and yet he "just is" is nonsensical then?
Not that I didn't expect a dodging, but your response is extremely weak to say I'm misunderstanding you if you are completely failing to respond to my points. What am I misunderstanding? All I'm doing is pointing out that your statement is nonsensical.
This is a load of bullshit you see. Since what you are responding to refutes your response!
If God cannot fit into the definition of 'exist' then he can't fit into the definition of 'just is' either. Because they are part of the same thing. For 'just is' to apply to him, he'd have to be or do things, and without existing he can't do that, because if he doesn't exist that means that there is no God to 'be' or 'do'.
To claim that God doesn't fit into the definition of 'exist', and to claim that despite this he still fits into the definition of 'just is', to claim that it somehow makes sense to claim that, and that his existence is irrelevant - is all completely nonsensical bullshit talk on your part.
Surely you realise that God 'just is' is completely irrelevant if his existence also is? And surely you realize that to say he 'just is' can't be true if he doesn't exist?
When you say God 'just is' you are saying that he exists. So what are you talking about when you are saying that existence is irrelevant? What is your point?
' His existence is irrelevant and yet he 'just is' '= "His existence is irrelevant and yet he just exists". So... what is relevant then? Do you have a point?
EvF
Not that I didn't expect a dodging, but your response is extremely weak to say I'm misunderstanding you if you are completely failing to respond to my points. What am I misunderstanding? All I'm doing is pointing out that your statement is nonsensical.
(November 6, 2009 at 11:42 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:Evie Wrote:God does not exist= There is no God. That's what it means. It's called English.
Except God doesn't fit the definition 'exist'. God just 'is'.
This is a load of bullshit you see. Since what you are responding to refutes your response!
If God cannot fit into the definition of 'exist' then he can't fit into the definition of 'just is' either. Because they are part of the same thing. For 'just is' to apply to him, he'd have to be or do things, and without existing he can't do that, because if he doesn't exist that means that there is no God to 'be' or 'do'.
To claim that God doesn't fit into the definition of 'exist', and to claim that despite this he still fits into the definition of 'just is', to claim that it somehow makes sense to claim that, and that his existence is irrelevant - is all completely nonsensical bullshit talk on your part.
Surely you realise that God 'just is' is completely irrelevant if his existence also is? And surely you realize that to say he 'just is' can't be true if he doesn't exist?
When you say God 'just is' you are saying that he exists. So what are you talking about when you are saying that existence is irrelevant? What is your point?
' His existence is irrelevant and yet he 'just is' '= "His existence is irrelevant and yet he just exists". So... what is relevant then? Do you have a point?
EvF
