If Not Hell then what?

[The Reality Salesman01]

ANY of these claims have logical contingencies. This is why God continues to fail. It's not your opinion that makes God a valid claim, it's how he holds up logically. Either his benevolence has no limits, or its limited. If he is limited, he's hardly a God of unlimited potential. If he's got limits of any kind, he fails as a God.

In who version of God? Yours? what if you are wrong about who God is or what God should be?

No. Again, my opinion is just as irrelevant as yours Drich. That's the point. If something is absolute, it IS and is NOT CONTINGENT on any subjective perspective. God either IS or IS NOT (blank). If He is (blank) the He is inherently NOT (opposite blank) at the same time.

Your definition of God (A boundless limitless being) is in of itself a paradox

Yes, but its not by definition. Its only what is inferred if such a thing is implied.

as God is limited by your understanding of how a boundless God should behave[/b].

Go is limited by logical absolutes which are apart from my understanding of anything at all. My understanding is only a way for me to recognize a claim that lacks validity. It is invalid apart from my understanding of it.

He does not fit the definition of "unlimited potential" you place on Him.

No. He is either unlimited or limited. Which is it? My definition of unlimited is not at all skewed by any opinion. Limit or No-Limit. It's not me that places this value to this entity you defend. It either is or isn't.

Unless you can show where I have actually done this, (where my representation of God is not consistant with how He is portrayed in the bible.) then know you are making things up.

Drich, your representation or the bible's...doesn't matter. They are still subject to certain logical contengencies. But in an attempt to not put words in your mouth, I would like to offer you the opportunity to make a specific claim about just 1 (so that we may have a manageable figure) of God's properties/attributes. Make it in a manner you believe consistent with The Bible's representation. I will not challenge the consistency. I am not concerned with it. I am interested in the claim. Where you get it only matters if its verifiable. If it is NOT, then it is only the claim that need be assessed according to its logical value. Not my opinion of value, its logical validity. There's a difference.

What are you talking about? You have created a version of God not consistant with How God is portrayed in Scripture.

The scripture is irrelevant. The claim is all that I'm concerned with. Tell me one thing about your God's properties that you think is consistent with scripture (if that is important to you) and lets discuss it. I do not wish to put words in your mouth. The floor is yours, and I will respond respectfully and cordially.

If we are having a discussion of the God of the Bible then it is by the bible the we are bound, in order to define the God it describes.

Fair enough. Give me an example.

Did I miss a post? where have you been able to prove my argument as Illogical?

Let us assume not, and for the sake of wasted argument, also accept that such a claim has never been made. I will concede that such a thing has not occurred in hopes that we may move forward with clear claim to engage. Water under the bridge. Clean slate. I await your claim with baited breath.

proof of God is only limited by your desire to simply A/S/K.

Claim 1! But, its not verifiable or falsifiable in any way shape or form. This is an invalid hypothesis because of its inability to be potentially confirmed by anyone but you. For the sake of logical discussion, could you perhaps make a claim that has substance similar to something that anyone that doesn't accept this on face value could possibly verify as actually existing? Maybe a claim about a property your God possesses? Just something of substance that can be analyzed.

The 'facts' in the bible about God can indeed be considered facts because there is away to prove or disprove what is in the bible about God.

Claim 2! I can see that the way your couched the word "facts" you already are aware that this claim has not rendered any merit. I will wait for you to present one of these "facts" so that we may determine if such things are indeed FACTS by having the potential to be either confirmed or falsified or "proved or disproved" as you've said.

The floor is yours Drich. I will use only statements from this post on to construct my rebuttals.

---

ANY of these claims have logical contingencies. This is why God continues to fail. It's not your opinion that makes God a valid claim, it's how he holds up logically. Either his benevolence has no limits, or its limited. If he is limited, he's hardly a God of unlimited potential. If he's got limits of any kind, he fails as a God.

In who version of God? Yours? what if you are wrong about who God is or what God should be?

No. Again, my opinion is just as irrelevant as yours Drich. That's the point. If something is absolute, it IS and is NOT CONTINGENT on any subjective perspective. God either IS or IS NOT (blank). If He is (blank) the He is inherently NOT (opposite blank) at the same time.

Your definition of God (A boundless limitless being) is in of itself a paradox

Yes, but its not by definition. Its only what is inferred if such a thing is implied.

as God is limited by your understanding of how a boundless God should behave[/b].

Go is limited by logical absolutes which are apart from my understanding of anything at all. My understanding is only a way for me to recognize a claim that lacks validity. It is invalid apart from my understanding of it.

He does not fit the definition of "unlimited potential" you place on Him.

No. He is either unlimited or limited. Which is it? My definition of unlimited is not at all skewed by any opinion. Limit or No-Limit. It's not me that places this value to this entity you defend. It either is or isn't.

Unless you can show where I have actually done this, (where my representation of God is not consistant with how He is portrayed in the bible.) then know you are making things up.

Drich, your representation or the bible's...doesn't matter. They are still subject to certain logical contengencies. But in an attempt to not put words in your mouth, I would like to offer you the opportunity to make a specific claim about just 1 (so that we may have a manageable figure) of God's properties/attributes. Make it in a manner you believe consistent with The Bible's representation. I will not challenge the consistency. I am not concerned with it. I am interested in the claim. Where you get it only matters if its verifiable. If it is NOT, then it is only the claim that need be assessed according to its logical value. Not my opinion of value, its logical validity. There's a difference.

What are you talking about? You have created a version of God not consistant with How God is portrayed in Scripture.

The scripture is irrelevant. The claim is all that I'm concerned with. Tell me one thing about your God's properties that you think is consistent with scripture (if that is important to you) and lets discuss it. I do not wish to put words in your mouth. The floor is yours, and I will respond respectfully and cordially.

If we are having a discussion of the God of the Bible then it is by the bible the we are bound, in order to define the God it describes.

Fair enough. Give me an example.

Did I miss a post? where have you been able to prove my argument as Illogical?

Let us assume not, and for the sake of wasted argument, also accept that such a claim has never been made. I will concede that such a thing has not occurred in hopes that we may move forward with clear claim to engage. Water under the bridge. Clean slate. I await your claim with baited breath.

proof of God is only limited by your desire to simply A/S/K.

Claim 1! But, its not verifiable or falsifiable in any way shape or form. This is an invalid hypothesis because of its inability to be potentially confirmed by anyone but you. For the sake of logical discussion, could you perhaps make a claim that has substance similar to something that anyone that doesn't accept this on face value could possibly verify as actually existing? Maybe a claim about a property your God possesses? Just something of substance that can be analyzed.

The 'facts' in the bible about God can indeed be considered facts because there is away to prove or disprove what is in the bible about God.

Claim 2! I can see that the way your couched the word "facts" you already are aware that this claim has not rendered any merit. I will wait for you to present one of these "facts" so that we may determine if such things are indeed FACTS by having the potential to be either confirmed or falsified or "proved or disproved" as you've said.

The floor is yours Drich. I will use only statements from this post on to construct my rebuttals.