(January 9, 2015 at 3:51 am)robvalue Wrote: I can't make a testable God claim, I can't even form a coherent definition. I'm thinking it may be impossible, but I'm interested to see anyone try.
No, I don't care what he is defined to be as long as you can provide some way to test it, to distinguish it from nothing at all. You can define him as mystic vapour if you like, as long as there's some way of telling that vapour is real and not invented. I don't count something as being real just because someone can imagine it.
Your either desperate to hang on to a defeated arguement because your not flexible enough to change when logic and reason show you to be in error (closed minded).
-or-
Your not smart enough to understand/refute the examples and following logic that defeat your arguement. (Empty minded) which is it?
There is a third option sort of..
You just have blind faith in the fact that the d-bag who orginally came up with the arguement your using is right, and if you just stick with his formula long enough (despite logic and reason) you will come out on top!
I guess one doesn't have to believe in God to be a man of faith!
