Sup, im a christian

[Darwinian]

JP isn't arguing in favour of God or gods he is simply putting forward a philosophical argument. As Adrian has already stated, you could just as easily substitute the word God for FSM or IPU or even Santa Clause in any of JP's posts and they would still contain the same argument.

Don't be fooled by complex terms and philosophical phrases as this is just so much linguistic contortion that JP (and others) use in an attempt to counter common sense objections with so much hyperbolism and guff.

And if JP's arguments are so well founded and watertight what exactly has he achieved? The possibility that a non-temporal entity of pure being exists outside the known laws of space and time?

So what? And how does this relate to any of the worlds religions? It certainly doesn't give their peculiar and nonsensical claims any credence does it?

JP is simply behaving like a politician by using his own style of language, repeating himself over and over again, not allowing himself to be pinned down to specifics and in the end, saying nothing.

And anyway, as everything that JP has said on this subject is purely based on some form of non-temporal realm that lies outside the Cosmos and can never be subject to any form of investigation it lies firmly in the realm of philosophy. I could argue just as eliquently in favour of string theory, multiple branes and time never having a beginning but where would it get us? Nowhere!

[fr0d0]

JP ADDRESSES a subject that exists outside the temporal realm!

JP reasons precisely why it applies to Christianity and not any other spurious examples. It gives absolute credence.

---

---

EvF: You want me to think for you Evie? The logic is presented - deal with it or not, it's your choice

[Darwinian]

JP ADDRESSES a subject that exists outside the temporal realm!

Outside the temporal realm? Is that the same as outside the universe? That would be the non-temporal realm then would it?

Trouble with that is that it is an imaginary place that we, no matter how smart, cannot begin to comprehend. A bit like trying to imagine a fourth physical dimension. We're not even sure that such a place actually exists.

So, the only way you can argue on the subject is from your own imagination as you can have absolutely nothing else to go on. No basis for comparison and certainly no frame of reference.

JP reasons precisely why it applies to Christianity and not any other spurious examples. It gives absolute credence.

Without the first problem being solved then this statement must likewise be a work of pure imagination and invention.

[Tiberius]

Yet he failed to explain why it gives absolute credence when you substitute in other examples. You call them spurious, I call them examples that show how his argument does not merit it's conclusion. It's a non-explanation, given that anything (even the lack of a God) could just as easily explain the existence of these things.

Calling them spurious isn't an argument; it's a philosophical chickening out.

[Minimalist]

You repeat the same old guff Samson. Be a man and go face the reaper.

Or...be catholic and face the raper.

[fr0d0]

Like you trying to dismiss it here rather than taking it there you mean?

@ D: You want to measure non temporal with temporal tools then? We can consider it AND reach logical conclusions. That's the subject.

[Tiberius]

Like you trying to dismiss it here rather than taking it there you mean?

I raised the issue there multiple times, he put the same lame rebuttal forward about Christianity somehow being special or that I hadn't "got" the argument. Only convinced me that he didn't understand logical principles himself.

[Darwinian]

We can consider it AND reach logical conclusions. That's the subject.

That's fine if you are having a philisophical argument but JP is using this 'subject' to try and give credence to his assertian that there is a god but as philosophy is not an empirical study of the world it can never be used to make such claims.

[Samson]

You repeat the same old guff Samson. Be a man and go face the reaper.

I'm sorry for sounding so much like you and the rest of the herd.......

Frodo, be a man and stop believing in Santa clause......

[Edwardo Piet]

Don't be fooled by complex terms and philosophical phrases as this is just so much linguistic contortion that JP (and others) use in an attempt to counter common sense objections with so much hyperbolism and guff.

What....this? : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_intimidation

Specifically 'proof by verbosity', lol.

Verbosity is not a bad thing in my mind...I love words, but when it's more than necessary it can just confuse issues.

I don't think he's trying to confuse. I think that's just the way he is sometimes...over complicates things I guess.

EvF: You want me to think for you Evie? The logic is presented - deal with it or not, it's your choice

Saying the 'logic is presented' doesn't make the logic logical/relevant to the matter. Untill I know of any evidence for God in the argument I consider the argument to be bullshit, or gratuitous and irrelevant to the matter of God's existence at best.

@ D: You want to measure non temporal with temporal tools then? We can consider it AND reach logical conclusions. That's the subject.

Well untill there's any evidence for it, labeling it nontemporal doesn't make it any more nontemporal than if you labeled it "cabbage". If God is going to be claimed to be somehow nontemporal then he needs evidence just as much as if he's labeled temporal. In fact you also perhaps need evidence for not only him, but also for the fact that you're claiming him outside time restrictions when....why? What's special about him? Why is he nontemporal? So evidence please.

EvF