Punished for Babel?

[Silver]

Then you misuse the word God.

Not at all. Man possess all the same qualities as befits the definition of a deity when he creates.

Anyone who reads it without thought, understanding nothing, would think that, yes.

Critical thinking is always foremost in my mind when reading. Unfortunately, to accept scripture at face value, one must forgo with critical thinking.

[fr0d0]

Man is a much better god than the fictional biblical character for which there is no proof to support his existence.

What proof is it logical to expect of God as defined in Christianity? Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, benevolent and timeless. Besides the fact that we and the universe exist.

[Silver]

What proof is it logical to expect of God as defined in Christianity? Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, benevolent and timeless. Besides the fact that we and the universe exist.

I could state the obvious retort: what proof need I provide when there is no evidence of your god's existence.

However, I would rather state: one who creates a novel is all of those things. Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, benevolent and timeless, because that writer controls everything that happens to the characters and the world in which he is creating.

[fr0d0]

Man possess all the same qualities as befits the definition of a deity when he creates.

Man possesses a moral sense. That doesn't make him God. The same way that an ant possessing a mouth doesn't make it human.

[Silver]

Man possesses a moral sense. That doesn't make him God. The same way that an ant possessing a mouth doesn't make it human.

Horrible, illogical analogy. Please, try again.

[fr0d0]

Critical thinking is always foremost in my mind when reading. Unfortunately, to accept scripture at face value, one must forgo with critical thinking.

Then you do scripture, and yourself, a disservice.

---

Man possesses a moral sense. That doesn't make him God. The same way that an ant possessing a mouth doesn't make it human.

Horrible, illogical analogy. Please, try again.

Please explain why the analogy fails.

You chose one aspect of God and claimed that man (amidst other animals at least) having that one attribute must also be God.

[Silver]

Then you do scripture, and yourself, a disservice.

The only disservice done to scripture is that it is accepted as fact.

[fr0d0]

what proof need I provide when there is no evidence of your god's existence.

I said : there cannot be proof

You said : there is no proof

Claim = yours.

---

However, I would rather state: one who creates a novel is all of those things. Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, benevolent and timeless, because that writer controls everything that happens to the characters and the world in which he is creating.

Is this proof?

[Silver]

I said : there cannot be proof

You said : there is no proof

Claim = yours.

There is no proof. Simple as that. The burden always lies with the one making the positive, extraordinary claim for which there is no evidence to support the claim.

And again you start with the semantics. There cannot be proof and there is no proof are the same thing. If you had stated there is currently no proof, that would have been different.

[fr0d0]

The only disservice done to scripture is that it is accepted as fact.

What kind of fact? Are you talking pseudo literalist idiocy that you address and I reject?