Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:10 pm
[ he doesn't suddenly become a whole new concept.]
Actually, it does. Are you unfamiliar with the convention of distinguishing the two with a capital?
Add a capital, call it a convention and that changes everything - by nullifying all the other cultures and their religions. That works exactly as long as you wield the biggest stick and dangle the biggest carrot.
Yes, conceptually, there could only ever be one such...and if, as you say, there is a reason a Supreme Being could not exist, I'm willing to hear it. But I have not heard any such reason yet.
There is no standard of comparison to measure the relative greatness of all beings. Conceptually, Donald Trump is the rightful POTUS. For which concept, there fortunately
is a measurable standard.
I'm not saying you have to assume it. I'm saying we're discussing what would be the case IF such a Being exists.
Oh, IF! IF everything were otherwise, then everything would be different. Hypothetically.
[We know that it [God] has never been photographed or captured in the wild - much like a unicorn.]
Your expectation is that if a Supreme Being exists, you'd be able to "capture" Him?
My expectation is that if something exists, there is some evidence of its existence, yes. The lack of evidence of existence is the only thing we can be sure rainbow unicorns and gods have in common. (The teapot, as ever, is exempt.)
[Have you seen any objectively verifiable evidence? If so, please produce it]
Yes. And I will.
But I'm awaiting your reasons for saying that God is "imaginary," or "silliness," or "could not be." Those are strong claims of certainty, it seems to me; they would require some sort of concommitant evidence, if we are to think them to be rationally asserted.
You stand accused of six counts of first degree murder. Prove you didn't commit those crimes.
I do not possess the virtue of patience. Never put off till dawn whom you can hang tonight?