Ivor Bigun
Registered Member
How do you know?
Education perhaps ?
How do you know?
Who invented it?
I'm not really sure what point you're making.
What? Invent?
Dave, just a note aside: In other discussions, including one we've been having recently, I might make a point about who we let set the terms of which argument.
Please remember this thread, when I do, and the fact of your response.
That's Wong on so many levels.It is possible to be very intelligent and wrong.
Even Einstein admitted making a mistake by adding a cosmological constant to one of his questions.
Since the discovery of Dark Energy, it appears he wasn't wrong !
So he was wrong about being wrong !!!
Sadly, we're no better behaved.Name one modern device invented by Jesus or any of the gods.
Who invented medical science?
Who invented computers?
Who invented the internal combustion engine ?
Who invented the Saturn 5 rocket ?
Humans, that's who.
We are better than any gods.
Interesting, but not very clear. Is it a warning?
Maybe not your business? Yeah, probably not your business.
Oh, hey, look: I answered your question.
You should try it sometime↗.
It would probably help people understand what you're on about if you were at least capable of showing that you have a clue.
Seriously, anyone can write insensate one-liners and posture cheap sloganeering.
"God Is" or maybe "God Isn't" ?
Existence of any particular entity is not and could not be necessary.
That makes no sense.If God. God Is.
That's a Proving a Negative fallacy. Properly, "Why could God be necessary?"Why couldn't God be necessary?
Education perhaps ?
A Roman named Brian Bigerdickus,
Name one modern device invented by Jesus or any of the gods.
That makes no sense.
That's a Proving a Negative fallacy. Properly, "Why could God be necessary?"
And he wouldn't be.
That's a Proving a Negative fallacy. Properly, "Why could God be necessary?"
And he wouldn't be.
If Jan means "If God, then God Is" then actually it does make sense.That makes no sense.
God could be necessary simply by fulfilling two criteria:That's a Proving a Negative fallacy. Properly, "Why could God be necessary?"
Oh, He could be.And he wouldn't be.
If Jan means "If God, then God Is" then actually it does make sense.
What it means is that, IF God were to be manifest in whatever form God manifests, then God Is... because God is defined (per Jan) along the lines of "He who Is".
So basically he's saying that if God Is then God Is.
God could be necessary simply by fulfilling two criteria:
1. By being defined as being necessary
2. By actually being objectively real
God is obviously more amazing than the Universe.
If amazing things require a maker then God requires one too.
Not really sure I follow.Dave, just a note aside: In other discussions, including one we've been having recently, I might make a point about who we let set the terms of which argument.
Please remember this thread, when I do, and the fact of your response.
And I'm not really sure to what other argument you refer, but I'll keep watch (maybe I just haven't read it yet).