(October 29, 2013 at 6:53 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote: No, you are changing what you said now.
The original post presented several arguments that Christians use in regards to proving their stance. Your claim was that they did not hold together, and the only argument you made to plausibility was as a side note to remind the reader that you did not take the arguments as fact in either case.
You claimed that there is a disconnect in reason between a supreme being and His ability to become a man. I disagree. If something is all powerful it can therefore do all things. This idea has no disconnect in itself, whether you take it as truth or not.
Christ's "proof" that he was God was not just in miracles, but in actions and presentation of a ideas that were completely strange (like loving your enemy, and the poor inheriting the Earth). He also rose from the dead of His own volition. I think that helped seal the deal. This idea connects back the to idea that God could so all things.
It is a complete idea, whether you take it as truth or not.
That's not how I interpreted the OP. I took it to mean that though the first 4 arguments (cosmological, ontological, teleological and moral) purport to be proofs of a creator god and the last two arguments (historical and religious experience) It's that even if such a being exists, you still can prove it's the one you say it is.
Forgive the use of language, but I have to be careful how I word things, lest I be accused of converting
I probably haven't interpreted the OP as intended either. I mean, we have the OP preserved at the start of this thread. I hate to think what would happen if all we had to go on was a translation of a translation of 2 millennia old documents
