Sarkus,
Round and round and round we go
Where we stop, no-one will know.
I stopped a while back.
The rest is just experimentation.
Thus they are DISTINCT. Things can be distinct - yet still a reflection.
Now you're getting it. Well done.
reflection;
1. reflected image: the image of somebody or something that appears in a mirror or other reflecting surface
You are using nothing but sophistry to try to worm your way out of your mess - and not doing a very good job at it.
And you are trying desparately to claw back some cred.
Please explain how God can be the source of everything, remain non-Distinct from everything, and still not BE everything?
Been there done that.
Why is there a NEED for a solution?
Because they lacked it originally.
Actually, if you think about it, there isn't a need for a solution, but a solution is an intelligent option to keep civilisation on track. The idea of NEED, is subjective.
Every need has a lack.
Every creation implies a need implies a lack.
See above.
I may understand the definition that you are trying to convince me of - but YOU need to provide evidence that can ONLY be attributed to God - and to nothing else.
I've already provided evidence... "everything". Who or what else could that be attributed to?
YOU need to explain why "everything" is evidence of God - and all you have so far is "through definition".
That is not the need, otherwise I could ask why isn't "everything" evidence of God. The point is, nobody knows.
In which case I ask you YET AGAIN...
What does your GOD do or offer that "everything" doesn't offer?
What does your personification of "everything" gain from the label of "God"?
a) your question is pointless, as to have a correct answer would take our positions out of the realm theism and atheism. These positions exist because we do not have the answer.
b) you can always read the scripture to understand why it is believed that God is the ultimate source. If you read it and come to conclusion that it is nonsense then your status is atheist (non-belief). But that is as far as you can take (rationally).
YOU need to conclusively show that it can ONLY be rationally shown to be evidence of God - and not evidence for anything else.
If I could, I wouldn't be labelled "theist", you wouldn't be "atheist".
What you are asking of me, is, from a human perspective, is impossible to do, which is why you are irrational, illogical, and dis-honest.
Thus all "everything" can ever be is evidence for "everything" - nothing else.
From your perspective. You don't have to believe anything other than your computer is evidence of your computer, with nothing else attached, i.e. manufactorer, designer. You would be correct on a very basic level.
Definition is NOT evidence - it is NOT proof - it is nothing but a concept.
I didn't say it was. But the definition forms the basis of intelligent analasys i.e. we gain more understand of what a compter is because of its definition, instead of calling it by its individual components.
In other words you can't provide any. Which makes it irrational to believe in it. Thanks for the clarification.
What you're asking me to do is impossible, and you know it.
You are everything you claim I am.
The only gross ignorance (or it may be deliberate obtuseness) is on your part.
You have merely provided a definition and said "by definition this is evidence of God" - but all you have done is provided a new label for "God". Well done.
I have provided the definition as a platform for us to work from. I did not say "everything is evidence of God", I said, "it stands to reason that if God is the ultimate source, then everything is evidence of God". I also stated that this has to be realised in order to know, which is the point of belief, and religion is its pure form.
If there are two competing theories - mutually exclusive (i.e. only one can be held true) - and there is "evidence" that fits both - then that "evidence" can rationally NOT be held as evidence for anything but itself. To think that it is evidence for both is irrational and ignorant.
But not in the case of God. Because, by definition, God is the source of everything. If you don't believe in God, then fine, but to try and beat down people who do, is a step too far imo.
Yes - they do. You just can not see the logic due, presumably, to your preset thinking.
The truth is, I can see the logic.
Correct. And you could - yet you still fail to see how this applies to the argument. Blinkered.
I concieved of a tin of pilchards in a place I deemed outside of the universe.
How does that apply to your argument?
Not a better question - as this is introducing the concept of God - which I specifically was avoiding in order to highlight the specific point.
That is your problem, you want to avoid the concept of God, while at the same time convince yourself he does not exist. And you call yourself rational and logical.
Yet you argue below that belief is not digital! How bizarre. You are confirming your confused status.
You're a self-confessed atheist, and I, a theist. Presumably, we have arrived at this position, not instantly, or not forced, but thoughtfully and purposefully. I am merely following from that presumption. Niether of us know if our position is absolutely correct, although we have reason which strengthens our decisions. My point is, at this stage, there is no use in saying i'm wrong or you're wrong, we either believe or not.
I still don't follow you.
What are you trying to acheive by claiming I am irrational and delusional?
What are you trying to acheive by asking me to provide physical evidence of God?
Why can't you accept that I believe in God, and you don't?
No - you have given no examples that hold up to scrutiny.
What do you mean by "scrutiny", as in what type?
It is also not the logic that is below the standard of this discussion but your understanding and grasp of that logic. The very fact you receive the implication is evidence of this.
Logic can only go so far in this discussion, because we a dealing a principle, which is defined as the source of everything including logic. This source cannot be totally understood through logical argument. But, logical argument can put things (that we can know) into perspective ensuring that we don't go out on a limb. Your logic attempts to go out on a limb, by demanding something that cannot be acheived conclusevlely.
Jan said:
Do you think logic belongs to atheists?
No - merely to people with a certain level of intelligence.
Okay. I get your point.
Lol! I can think outside of certain perimeters - I just know when they are not logical / rational.
Please demonstrate this ability?
Jan said:
One can utilise the senses to try and observe something specific, ie, trying to hear the triangle in an orchestra. Observation through the senses is a general habit.
Please explain the flaw and dishonesty in that response?
I don't know it is impossible. You are the one claiming it is - not me.
Of course you know its impossible, which is the reason why you stick with it.
If it was possible it would have held up already. The fact that this is one of the most debated arguments is testiment to the complexity of the issue.
If you want to play silly-beggars, then be my guest.
I have told you all there is to know. Now please answer the question.
no definition
no nature
no experience
no information (outside one persons mind)
no other persons making any claims
My conclusion is that you have made the Snargul up.
Yes - and an opinion borne out of logical fallacies. Or do you contend, bizarrely, that opinions are immune from such scutiny?
Please state the fallacy, as, "it SEEMS in-human" appears to not have enough information to draw such a conclusion, but by it's very words would suggest not enough information was given in the statement, that it was in response to?
And thus not subject to the scrutiny of logic?
Why would such a response need to come under the scrutiny of logic, bearing in mind the dialougue is obviously incomplete? Would it not be better to scrutinise my conclusion?
Jan.
