(February 28, 2010 at 4:34 pm)Watson Wrote: WC, what Christian God are you talking about? The one I'm acquainted with is in no way vague or lacking in attributes which can be defined. In fact, there are such simple ways of defining him I find it amusing you call any possible God 'complex', bbecause in reality, God is very simple.Once again, simple or complex, it all depends upon your definition of said God concept.
(February 28, 2010 at 4:42 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: @ cake: The ontology is certainly not contradictory - you gave an example and I linked you to explanations of why that was not so. Now you're repeating the accusation. Again with the blind assertions.For the last time, I'm responding to your claim about logic. Yes you provided me with a link and the findings of the thread's arguments from every premise resulted in a paradox, congratulations.
Quote:I see no evidence for. Do you? Please avail us all of your unique revelation or STFUNo what you said was we require supernatural methods of detection for finding god, therefore we cannot know. You've identified your "theory for god", then demonstrated that it makes no predictions, or that the predictions it does make cannot ever be wrong, even if the theory is false. That is an outlandish assertion, and if you don't mind me saying, a rather arrogant claim that tells us an awful lot about your position.
I am bored and tired so I'll ask you one last time, how do you know logic cannot refute logically impossible concepts insupportable by evidence, (not logically unknowable or improbable) such as god?