Hi, I'm the Godhead

[theVOID]

Hey flapdrol, I read the rest of your post. But you can't blame me for the contradictions you create, can you? Sure you can, you just did. Seems you're not so rational as you would like to be.

I'm sorry that you feel the need for a full disclaimer per paragraph, but i can't be fucked providing you with one. Why, when i have already specifically excluded personal/interpersonal truths from the statement 'emotions about any given proposition are entirely unrelated to the truth of said proposition ' would I need to or want to make this distinction every single time?

---

Void -

That's the thing, I don't reject the fundamental view of christians, which is that there's a god. I disagree with some of their other views, and that's because my take on life is different to theirs. Not all theists have exctly the same views.

Yes, you both agree on a God, but the nature of that God is entirely different, so when it comes down to it you believe your conclusion and reject their similar conclusion.

I want to know by which standard do you consider your own personal emotional/intuitive conclusion mroe valid than the contradictory conclusions reached by Christians, when they have both met the exact same standard for determining truth?

You know exactly what my question is and exactly why the Christian (or any other) conclusion and your conclusion can not both be true. God cannot be both the universe it's self and an entity existing outside of the universe. So, I ask you AGAIN:

By what thought to you determine that your own conclusions are more appropriate to hold positive belief in opposed to the conclusions of others when both conclusions meet your very own standards for determining truth?