Originally posted by J.P.
Yes, and so what's the problem?
Well, ASS, in a nutshell, it's stupid. Of course in order to perform their function, many people have to believe in something that someone provides them, as they are not able/motivated to really doubt the dogma... since their function requires them to invest their efforts elsewhere. Since the fundamental questions don't go away, they'd have a hard time focusing on their function if other people's function wasn't to provide them with the dogma that support them in their preferred activity. MY function however is to question all this and find what IS and what IS NOT ultimately bullshit.
Cult generated dogma is ultimately bullshit, but provides a very utilitarian support system for those who would have it.
So the problem is when one of those cult-members wants to quesiton their information, but isn't observant enough to realize that they bound themselves by this dogma sometime ago and if they want to question all of this, they certainly can't do so honestly while still within their sphere of dogma, but they are "faithful", so they get themselves all into this circle of retardation, as they want to question their dogma but can't see beyond it because they chose (and still unconsciously choose) not to, as they have emotionally invested in the dogma... often to the point of no return.
Inherently from my perspective, that is a problem. It may not be seen as such from other perspectives. I think either perspective is valid. They are all dictated by function really, so... let us. Nah, carrot. Sorry, horrifically bad joke.
Originally posted by J.P.
What makes you think a complete description of God would be infinite?
I simply think the god concept is unknowable. I suppose you might say "a complete description of god would be infinite" as an analogy, but as it is unknowable, you can't know it, so how could you say it would be infinite? Maybe that infinity is unknowable? It might make a decent retort to given logic as an analogy that contradicts an assertion.
I'm so retarded JP that I think that even trying to define the concept of god is retarded (though kind of noble and beautiful (but SO abused by people that the nobility and beauty is tarnished)) and leads to compounding retardation.
Originally posted by J.P.
Not even infinite capacity would suffice for absolutely everything.
Capacity for what? What is "everything"? Why isn't infinity big enough? You talking cardinal numbers here? What about the set of all sets? That's surely big enough right? I mean, isn't that the definition?
Originally posted by J.P.
No one thinks omnipotence involves the ability to commit logical violations except amateurs.
LOL. That is a snobbishly idiotic thing to say. The idea of omnipotence directly implies the ability to contradict yourself. As the concept of omnipotence itself is pure abstract, one can iterate on the definition all day long to see how it plays. I think that the concept of omnipotence
necessarily requires the ability to contradict itself as it is defining, but I dunno. It depends on a lot of things, your definitions/constraints.. blah blah. I'd guess you could set it up to where you don't have to contradict yourself to implement the concept but I'd argue that I think you've fundamentally changed the concept at that point. I'm sure you disagree.
Originally posted by J.P.
Try applying infinite amounts of electricity to 2 + 2 and see if you can make it equal 5.
It doesn't take that much to do it. 2+2=5 dependent on the context in which I use it.
Originally posted by J.P.
"if God exists outside of time, then God cannot possibly do things in sequence"
But if "god" existed outside of time he could do whatever. In sequence out of sequence... blah blah. My question would be "as a creature bound to time, how can you say anything about 'god' if 'he' exists outside of time with any degree of confidence?"
Originally posted by J.P.
Um hm. Ever hear of a "hypostasis"? Solves all your little problems with a finger snap.
No I haven't heard of it and uhm.. "all my
little problems" are in a somewhat different context than you place them. Maybe Chris Langden would make such amatuer mistakes.
Originally posted by J.P.
"Now, let's look at the historical record of Christianity so far."
Why?
Originally posted by J.P.
Sound bite version? Tell me,...
1) How many people were killed by the Spanish Inquisition? Any idea?
2) When Israel attacked the Amalekites, what were the Amalekites doing? Were they minding their own business? Picking flowers? Do tell us how much you know about the Ancient Near East; this should be fascinating.
I'm sure people would have found some other reason to kill each other if it weren't for their retarded dogma.
Originally posted by J.P.
It's nice to see how pissed you atheists are, but some facts would also be nice to supplement all that wee wee you put down.
That is simply hallarious from a prick like yourself, spewing venom and pretending he's on the high road. What a joke you are, ASS.
