RE: Ontology of God--Theological Noncognitivist View
January 16, 2010 at 8:50 am
(This post was last modified: January 16, 2010 at 8:53 am by fr0d0.)
(January 16, 2010 at 12:19 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:(January 15, 2010 at 11:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I think you misunderstood Kich.
A child learns by trial and error in the absence of guidance, influence and instinct. Trial and error is the worst method. The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.
Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.
That's nice dear...
And you are right in as much as a child will learn by figuring out what will and will not work. Not the fundemental components of what it is and why. You are talking about concepts which are no different than the concept of string theory (IMHO)
I am not god?? (FFS don't tell my kids!) Why should that be an argument??? And further, if that is your definition as per your previous posts, then I can not exist...so why are you arguing??
That it's no different to the concept of string theory dismisses it how exactly?
You are not God - we can clearly know that... so that shows already there are some things we know are not God which is what I'm saying. Do that a lot more and you can arrive at what God is.
God is in everything but each individual component alone does not equal God. It's quite simple.
(January 16, 2010 at 12:53 am)theVOID Wrote:(January 15, 2010 at 11:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.
Lmao, what a load of shit frodo.
Please substantiate that claim VOID. Or STFU
(January 16, 2010 at 12:53 am)theVOID Wrote:Quote:Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.
Come on then frodo, stop talking and start falsifying! Demonstrate knowledge of God.
I just did. Apparently you missed it.
(January 16, 2010 at 6:05 am)Zen Badger Wrote:(January 15, 2010 at 11:06 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I think you misunderstood Kich.
A child learns by trial and error in the absence of guidance, influence and instinct. Trial and error is the worst method. The abrahamic definitions of God were arrived at by figuring out what God was not.
Ignosticism suggests that we can't know what God isn't, which is clearly falsifiable. You aren't God. FAIL.
Since it is clearly falsifiable, please demonstrate how.
Same answer to you Zen. Didn't you just see me demonstrate how?
