Godless Dave

Nope, only the ones who make ignorant statements and non-sensical arguments.

Jinto

You know, people might have more respect for you if you stopped making these "poor me" posts every five minutes.

Just a suggestion of course.

xian

Hey, I'm not making fun of any atheists here.

xian

thanks for that suggestion. i'll keep it in mind


however, the last thing i have is hurt feelings, lol.

xian

i'm wondering if someone can at least answer this question:


Do you assume that gravity exists in the Andromeda galaxy?

Jamie_L

Wow. I wait a day to post again, and suddenly my old post is buried under 6 more pages of... well, I haven't read those six pages.

Just wanted to respond to Xian's comments from my post 6-pages ago. Then, I'll probably give up on trying to keep track of this thread - which, judging by the length, has probably deteriorated significantly or gone off on some tangent. But...

Xian:

If nobody clarified, OP is an abbrieviation for "Opening Post": just shorthand for referring to your initial post.

I realize that your OP was not making an arguement for the existence of God. My point was that in not doing so, you seemed to be missing the point of the statement you were trying to debunk (I believe it was item #2 from the OP). In my opinion, your debunking was making a completely separate arguement from point #2. You were arguing about how the definition of your God set it apart from other definitions like the IPU. My point was that #2 wasn't making a claim about the definitions being similar. It was making a point that the evidence/arguements for the existence of these different beings is similar.

So, it seems like the arguement in your OP didn't really address the issue you were trying to debunk.

Jamie

xian

yes, the thread deteriorated into a "bash the xian" thread- that inevitable state of affairs that takes place when 1 theist stands alone in a room full of atheists and refuses to submit to their emotional-laden intimidation tactics.

Perhaps my #2 wasn't fully addressed in my supporting arguments. I understand the part about making an evidential rebuttal in reference to the IPU argument. What I intended to clarify was that there is a clear difference between the GPB and all other proposed deities. And it is the GPB that Christians argue for.

Mageth

Logical neccessity mutually excludes two GPB's from existing. There can only be one.

I still haven't seen you convincingly explain why there must be only one GPB. Or how there can exist even one GPB.

I think I and others have raised serious questions, which you haven't satisfactorily answered, as to whether a being that can be labeled the GPB can exist in reality at all. As a concept, perhaps (though some good objections have been raised questioning the validity of the concept) but my objections (and the objections of others) have pointed out the problems with an extant GPB.

My main objection still stands: we could not prove, nor could a candidate GBP prove, even to itself, that indeed the being is the GPB. At most, one could only claim the existence of a being that may be the GPB.

Therefore, in regards to the JCG, if one claims it exists, one can at most claim that it may be the GPB. One cannot demonstrate that the JCG is the GPB. (Note that one could perhaps demonstrate that it was not the GPB). Therefore, the GPB cannot be demonstrated to exist, and therefore a being that can be labeled as the GPB cannot exist in reality. At most, a "potential GPB" or a "being that may be the GPB" may exist.

And, logically, more than one "potential GPBs" may co-exist, no?

And I still claim that not even God can demonstrate that it is the GPB. God can't even prove to herself that she is the GPB. At most, God can assume she's the GPB.

Therefore, the concept of a GPB is at most an interesting mental exercise.

Godless Dave

Yes, although assume might not be the right word. I'm confident that gravity is what holds the Andromeda galaxy together.

xian

thanks, dave for answering. i posted the question on the SCIENCE thread. Please everyone discussing causation go there. thx.