Jinto

Actually, my assumption was that people would recognize that as sarcasm. Unfortunately, I forgot the

EspressoSnail

Argh... sarcasm... eep... I have big trouble reading that sometimes... which is really weird because I'm rather sarcastic! Well... umm... Sorry 'bout that!

xian

if the IPU is defined as the GPB, it is no longer the IPU, but the GPB (see my original argument).

continuing to ignore my responses to them won't make me repeat it.

the IPU in that case, is no longer the IPU, but the GPB. That point has also been made previously.

neither are yours.

another red herring.

the definition according to Logic, and in harmony with the Bible.

i can logically conclude that any proposed deity with attributes acribed to it of the GPB makes that proposed deity simply the GPB.

In the same way, take a proposed human named Jack, describe him with all the attributes of G.W Bush, and Jack turns out to simply be G.W. Bush.

it very well may not be contradictory. heck you can think up of any posssible non-contradictory deity. You can describe it any way you wish- including in such a way that it is not logically contradictory. it will still be lesser than the GPB. UNless of course, you are simply describing the GPB.

and yet another red herring.

there is much more to reasonable, mutual dialogue than being condescending.

xian

no it can't. you are excercising faith here.

that is fine and dandy. faith is part of human existence.

Jinto

No worries mate!

Why do I smell an equivication of "faith" as belief in what the evidence shows to be likely and possible with "faith" as belief without (or in contradiction of) any evidence?

Lobstrosity

See, that's the problem. To make Christians feel better about their own baseless "faith," they define faith as a binary state. Either you're taking something on faith or you're not. Well that's really just ridiculous. Faith is anything but a binary state. It's a continuum that is quantified by a confidence level. The confidence you have in something is based on past experiences, empirical data, and logical reasoning. If you want to call everything faith, I guess that's fine, but what's the point? The word loses all meaning because it applies to everything. You take God on faith with a very low confidence level (since there is by definition no evidence for God). You take the fact that the sun is still there on faith with an extremely high confidence level based on past experiences and detailed scientific understanding of naturalistic processes.

For example, getting onto a United Airlines plane requires faith that you won't die. Getting onto a "plane" some stranger claims to have built out of cheese, that has no discernable wings, and that is to be launched off a cliff also requires faith that you won't die. One clearly requires more faith than the other. Faith is not binary, so using it as such is beyond pointless.

xian

lol, listen to your own faith, Lobstrosity.

You cannot even empirically say Bells Inequality isn't satisfied. How can you say that? All Bell showed was that hidden variables are irrelevant. There is no such conclusion you can make to say events are causeless. In fact, such a conclusion is impossible. You *want* causeless events, because you need such a thing in order to satisfy the existence for the universe itself, but the problem is, that a causeless event is a supernatural postulation. Plain and simple.

I am more of a naturalist than you are.

When referring to quantum events and the EPR paradox, you are content to say "causeless" and stop there.

Not me.

Considering all quantum events in this universe occur in a quantum vacuum (also called the zero point energy sea)...which is a something , and that Einsteins "spooky communication" may be occuring between 2 decayed photons from a pion, there are a whole host of possible causes for the "communication". Everything you have said about science proving causeless events is just simply not true.

Where you are content to see the black object in the sky and say "UFO", I am one who says that we must search for a more natural explanation.

causeless events proven?

lol! Hardly.

Mad Kally

Sorry if this has already been said. What ever happened to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god of Abraham? They are all the same guy. The same fictional creature, that is...

Shadowy Man

Can you demonstrate with absolute certainty that "Uncaused events must be eternal"?

kctan

Bad luck here. The IPU (PBUHHH) is still not the gpb. It's 2 different entity. Although they may share the same attributes, they are 2 different entities. You can have 2 1 dollar bills. They are the same yet 2 different entities. You can spent either to buy a 1 dollar product but you don't pay the bugger 2 dollars. Got the drift yet ?

See above.

No you can't. Unless the gpb is an unicorn & invisible & pink at the same time. Which makes it not the gpb but the IPU (PBUHHH).

One is still Jack & the other still dumb GW Bush. Have you ever seen twins before (from your answer, it's most likely no right ?) ? They can have all the same attributes yet is two distinctive persons.

That's what you think. The IPU (PBUHHH) is definitely much more powerful then anything you can come up with. Unless you're actually worshipping Her Holy Horniness, then you should stop saying gpb & start saying IPU (PBUHHH).