phlebas

Yes it does!

I read the whole thing. I admit there may be a comprehension gap, since English doesn't seem to be the strongest of your languages.

Logically contradictory things do not exist. You can prove that flat spheres or square circles or Keanu Reeve's Oscar Awards don't exist. You can say the same about many concepts of God.

The key there is within logical bounds. If you define a God that cannot exist within logical bounds, then it logically doesn't exist. Remind me again what we're arguing about?

True. Keep in mind that I'm not a believer in a god.

(Edited to fix UBB code)

[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: phlebas ]</p>

14God

&gt;&gt;Well,not exactly--you must first come up with some resource material or books documenting this so-called Supreme "rhino" Entity,such as the Bible. Then maybe there might be a comparison?
But still a bad one at that,seeing that most,but apparently not all, sane people would never believe in an animal being the Creator of the Universe.

Is there any compelling Historical references for any of the other anomalies or Phantastic god-like entities and spirits such as the mystical cults would conjure up?? I think not...unless this info was also conjured up.
At least it's proven that most of the Bible is based on fact.

Even if you don't agree that God was behind all the wars and atrocities of the OT,you must agree and do agree that they occurred.
If not,then you could supposedly hold to the chance of another comparable Deity existing outside the realms of the Bible...but most Atheists seem content on degrading the One that we do have record of,while still denying the source of their anger,of course.
But I do understand...since it's kind of like being angry over some make-believe psycho killer getting away scot free,although reassuring yourself that it's only a movie.

And if me simply "saying so" doesn't make it right,then theoretically the same should apply for anything YOU said to,right?
So we are once again back to square one...but i'm sure we will soon begin to inch closer towards the TRUTH,in about,oh say 50,000 more posts from now?
Surely by then we will be far removed from this current discussion,and much more advanced in our knowledge,right?~~

But I will leave with these closing thoughts,in which I know most will appreciate having even yet another opportunity to activate your favorite emotion--wonder what that is?
Just please don't shock me with any display of apathy or disinterest...or God forbid any consideration or respect,especially in the face of my apparent lack thereof...my heart simply couldn't take it!


"But I have understanding as well as you;I am not inferior to you;yea who knows not such things as these?"
"But ask now the beasts,and they shall teach you;and the fowls of the air,and they shall tell you.
"Or speak to the earth,and it shall teach you;and the fishes of the sea shall declare to you.
"Who knows not in all these that the hand of the Lord has wrought this?
"In Whose hand is the sould of every living thing,and the breath of all mankind."
[Job-12:1,7-10]
"What you know,I know also;I am not inferior to you.


In hidden repect,and veiled love--
Me

Mageth

Well,not exactly--you must first come up with some resource material or books documenting this so-called Supreme "rhino" Entity,such as the Bible. Then maybe there might be a comparison?

In the first place, I never said the rhino was a supreme entity. Just an imaginary entity flyin' around the earth. All it creates are monstrous rhino turds.

Further, as regards to my exemplary rhinoceros, I can say with confidence:

1) rhinoceroses exist
2) purple things exist
3) it is theoretically possible for a purple rhinoceros to exist
4) things with @twice the mass of the moon exist
5) it is theoretically possible for a purple rhinoceros with twice the mass of the moon to exist (a stretch, but go with it)
6) things exist that orbit the earth, and it is theoretically possible for something to orbit the earth at twice the orbit of the moon.

Therefore, my imaginary rhinoceros has far more "real" about it than the Xian-defined god (none of whose supposed supernatural characteristics we have ever encountered in reality; they come to us as "revealed" in a crusty old storybook of questionable provenance and full of fantastical, magical stories), and is, IMO, astronomically more plausible than the Judeo-Christian god.

[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Datheron

14God,

Argumentum ad populum.

Argument from Authority.

Unsupported a priori assumption.

Shifting the burden of proof.

Appeal to emotions.

And here I invent a new one - appeal to Bible. Wait, that shouldn't need to be invented...

Mageth

At least it's proven that most of the Bible is based on fact.

Oh really?

Even if you don't agree that God was behind all the wars and atrocities of the OT,you must agree and do agree that they occurred.

No I must not, no I do not. Not unless I see solid evidence corroborating the stories. Not any more than I believe all the stories in the Iliad just because ruins of Troy may have been identified.

Post these comments in BC&A, why don't you?

If not,then you could supposedly hold to the chance of another comparable Deity existing outside the realms of the Bible...but most Atheists seem content on degrading the One that we do have record of,while still denying the source of their anger,of course.

We don't have a "record" of him, we have a largely mythical book in which he was invented and defined (he's a fictional character). And my set of possible deities is the null set.

And if me simply "saying so" doesn't make it right,then theoretically the same should apply for anything YOU said to,right?


I believe I said "saying so doesn't make it true." And of course it applies to me. It applies to everyone.

Mageth

Thanks, Datheron. Beautifully done. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Infinity Lover

Such elaborations, wow.

But if you look at the three alledged catagories..

1 excisting for sure
2 perhaps existing
3 not existing

The third one is IMPOSSIBLE to work with, because nonexistense doesn't exist (that's pretty much nonexistense's daily routine) and it doesn't provide a hell of a lot of evidense.

That means you don't have to prove God doesn't exist at all. In fact that's a complete waste of time.

Leaving you with only two catagories to argue about.

certainly or perhaps existing.

And people... really...

...is there any dispute in which of those two God undoubtedly does belong and in which one he certainly doesn't?

I can't say God doesn't exist, but I can say God maybe exists, and that doesn't cut it as existing!

Can we agree on that and call it a day?

KeithHarwood

The third one is easi-peasy to work with, and persons of a logical turn of mind have been doing so for centuries. To say that something with certain properties does not exist is the same thing as saying that all the things which do exist do not have those properties.

So, if you have a statement about something that doesn't exist you can turn it into an equivalent statement about things which do exist.

IIRC a gentleman named Charles Dodgson wrote a primer for children on this subject towards the end of the nineteenth century. This in now the twentyfirst century. If you don't know how to work with non-existence I suggest you are a little behind the times.