Originally posted by Jenyar
Trying to create a god, Wes?
You are sorely short of comprehensive power if you think this my motivation or purpose.
Originally posted by Jenyar
Our faith that God exists rests on evidence you reject, because it contains statements you don't agree with, and therefore logic that does not conform with yours.
How do you presume to speak for others of your faith? Isn't that kind of rude?
Originally posted by Jenyar
On the other hand, if God does exist in the form He revealed, and made comprehensible what we comprehend about Him, it is entirely possible that our claims are valid.
That is based solely on your assertion that I'm trying to create a god, which I'm obviously not. How is it that you presume that "he revealed his form", via your delusion? Why should I give your delusion credence? Why do you?
Originally posted by Jenyar
Your claim implicitly contain the presumption that God does not exist, and as such you claims are equally invalid.
Man this is a matter of basic common sense. Is your mind so distorted from your faith that you cannot see this? Frankly I'm sickened by your twisted interpretation of words that obviously do NOT mean what you think they DO. Your habit of reading more into what is written (as you must do to ascertain your 'spiritual experience' via the bible) has effected your ability to communicate. Logically speaking Jenyar, my claim is that if something is incomprehensible, claims regarding it are MOOT by the definition of something being incomprehensible. It is SICK that you cannot even follow something so uhm.. logically kindergarden.
I do not claim that god does not exist. I seriously doubt it. Read Stephen Hawking. Further.. if a "god" were to exist, I'm almost completely sure that it would be beyond human comprehension to a point of being completely irrelevant to any discussion by a human. Even further, I'm ENTIRELY sure that the bible is simply eronious regarding spiritual matters. It's more a historically skewed epic regarding the history of a bunch of people trying desperately to figure out WHY they exist, and basically accepting the most convincing answers available at the time.
Now, I could see how one might respectfully disagree, but to label this reasoning illogical or unreasonable can only be indicative of a limited ability to process information regarding this topic.
When you assume God does not exist, any claim about God - in fact, any claim even that God himself makes -
will necessarily sound "astronomically impossible" to you. Comprehension is in the mind of the comprehender.
Please Jenyar, determine exactly where I've implied or stated that the creator doesn't exist. You derive all of this from my statement that I'm pretty sure that things exist which are incomprehensible to humans. Think about that. First, I'm only pretty sure. It simply
seems likely. I'm agnostic Jenyar. You should know that by now. Please take it into consideration so as not to waste your words.
Originally posted by Jenyar
I have no inclination to "herd" jcarl to my beliefs. He can obviously fend for himself.
While I cannot validly argue to the contrary, I doubt your sincerity. First of all, it is obvious to anyone whom can think remotely critically that jcarl is beyond novice. As such shouldn't you assist him? Yet you do nothing but try to justify his obvious retardedness and inability to think remotely logically. From my perspective, that looks like you're more interested in keeping him ignorant than helping him learn to think for himself. It looks to me that you'd rather keep him hooked on YOUR fish than teach him to find his own.
Originally posted by Jenyar
Only, I choose to submit them to a higher authority, and it is the duty of any Christian to point out to me if I ever contradict Scripture.
The power of your circular logic is incredibly strong. I find it interesting that a in nature a circle is a very strong structure too. The problem I have with circles when it comes to reasoning however, is that when you think in circles, you only learn more about the circle. You'll NEVER be able to see outside of it.
Maybe you can address my main contensions to religions:
How can you validly presume to
know that god exists.
How can you validly presume that if it does exist, it is comprehensible to humans in
any capacity?
How can you validly presume that if it IS comprehensible, the BIBLE is at all relevant?
How can you validly presume that IF the bible is relevant, it is the authoritative source for religious dogma? If you're right, isn't everyone else necessarily wrong?