Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Right, and to call that a fallacy.. it's just mind boggling they way they hang on to their delusion.
The Definition of God
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
Right, and to call that a fallacy.. it's just mind boggling they way they hang on to their delusion.
Yeah, exactly HE exists everywhere from HIM all things come forth HE is the origin of all things....
Sure, you see God is the origin of all things, all things are visible, to be the origin, he must be in-visible, otherwise if he was visible then he would be just like us, already existing within the universe (though he also has a physical form in the universe)Enmos said:
God is everywhere, nothing can visibly be everywhere at once, God must be in-visible, as Jesus says the "place where the light came into being by itself"
I can only give you a certain degree of evidence...why is this? Because only a certain degree is gatherable...the rest of evidence that is currently not gatherable, I obviously cannot give...Enmos said:
Jesus said If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest'"
There is something called the Quantum double-slit experimetn, motion is superposition and rest is the collapsed-state, what is the source of this phenomenon? It is something, something within you (the Father)
Hypothetically, how do you think we could prove god's non-existence?ROFL!!!!
Yes there is
Man I'm not even going to explain this, its too funny
I NEVER said you could disprove God's existence...
I said there was a such thing as evidnece of absence...for instance scientists showed the concept of the aether was wrong with innumerable experiments, this is evidence of absence
Actually, many people still debate the concept of aether....
But aether could still exist right?
I will rephrase the question then. Hypothetically, how could someone provide enough you with enough evidence that would be evidence of absence? Do you think this would be possible?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Why must he be invisible ? You made up that rule yourself.
That he couldn't be seen before creation is something entirely different. Unless you want to say he couldn't see himself either.
Also, if God is everywhere where was he before creation ?
So even Jesus didn't think God created light then ? If light came into being by itself why are you saying God created it ? Or do you say God = light ? And if so, did God create himself ?
Not even by you ? And how do you know it is there then ?
I don't get that.. it means nothing to me.
I don't see how that proves anything about Gods existence.
Creation within Himself? :scratchin:
an even better method of inquiry would be to examine the criteria that indicates the qualification for becoming acquainted with evidence
sounds like a good approach to anything that some yahoo claims without examining the nature of qualification
"Originally Posted by (Q)
And what would that fallacy be, exactly?
”
So, an atheist, who doesn't accept YOUR claims of YOUR god existing, is ignorant of that god existing.
Then, what would YOUR arguments be, if not from the same ignorance, of any other gods purported to exist that YOU don't accept? Would YOU also be arguing from fallacious position of ignorance?
Yes, you most certainly would, by your own logic.
And what would that fallacy be, exactly?
”
TruthSeeker said:
So, an atheist, who doesn't accept YOUR claims of YOUR god existing, is ignorant of that god existing.
Then, what would YOUR arguments be, if not from the same ignorance, of any other gods purported to exist that YOU don't accept? Would YOU also be arguing from fallacious position of ignorance?
Yes, you most certainly would, by your own logic.
Not necessarily. You fail to use the very logic you purport to depend on...if you can't even wield such an elementary concept consistently in accrordance with it's fundamental precepts, what guarantee do you have that 'where you stand' is correct? You and countless others here willingly participate in a mutually supportive type of herd mentality fostering, not enlightenment and growth, but stagnation through self deception.
Anyway... no argument. A simple statement that you can accept or reject. It's that, ah, simple.
All very nice, I'm sure, but you haven't actually countered his argument.
Rather you have just blathered on about how he can not, in your eyes, use logic properly - yet nowhere do you actually bother to point out the flaw in his logic that you seem to think exists.
So, in order to educate the rest, please do so, if you would be so kind and generous.
Or are you merely saying that your "arguments" are nothing but confidence statements, unable to be supported by either logic or evidence?
So long as we use logic (or the lack of thereof) to try to understand God, our arguments will be riddled by chaos and confusion. God is not quantifiable by any means. Such is the nature of God that it disallows us to understand His existance in a logical manner.
Language is the seed of logic. Remove language, and what is left is all that we can use to understand Him.
Language is the seed of logic. Remove language, and what is left is all that we can use to understand Him.