Yes i'm sure there are masses of people with the same opinion.Notvacka wrote:Nothing resulting from physical, material causes would fit my definition of God.attofishpi wrote:You still dont consider that God could result from physical, material causes.
An argument for the existence of God
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10011
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: An argument for the existence of God
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: An argument for the existence of God
What makes you think your question is valid?mickthinks wrote:That's an interesting assertion, chaz! How do you decide that you truly know something, and what makes you think you only think you know something?chaz wyman wrote:... you THINK that you know there is a God, but that is not the same as knowing it.
-
- Posts: 1523
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: An argument for the existence of God
That's a deflection, chaz, and a clumsy one. The question is difficult for you to answer because it exposes the nonsense inherent in your pronouncement on attofishpi's knowlege claim. I expected you to duck it, and I think that reflects badly on you.chaz wyman wrote:What makes you think your question is valid?mickthinks wrote:That's an interesting assertion, chaz! How do you decide that you truly know something, and what makes you think you only think you know something?chaz wyman wrote:... you THINK that you know there is a God, but that is not the same as knowing it.
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: An argument for the existence of God
Nope.mickthinks wrote:That's a deflection, chaz, and a clumsy one. The question is difficult for you to answer because it exposes the nonsense inherent in your pronouncement on attofishpi's knowlege claim. I expected you to duck it, and I think that reflects badly on you.chaz wyman wrote:
What makes you think your question is valid?
There is no ducking here. Rather than attack me personally, why don't you show me how and why the the question is valid.
Put up or shut up.
-
- Posts: 1523
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: An argument for the existence of God
CARRY ON DUCKING
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10011
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: An argument for the existence of God
The question is valid Chaz, you made the assertion and micthinks is questioning the logic of your assertion.chaz wyman wrote:What makes you think your question is valid?mickthinks wrote:That's an interesting assertion, chaz! How do you decide that you truly know something, and what makes you think you only think you know something?chaz wyman wrote:... you THINK that you know there is a God, but that is not the same as knowing it.
What came first, the noun...a bird called a duck, then the verb became associated with it since it tends to fly low? Or vice versa?
I normally call it a Chaz copout but either way, as mickthinks said,
CARRY ON DUCKING
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: An argument for the existence of God
mickthinks wrote:
CARRY ON DUCKING
Why don't you show me how and why the the question is valid.
Put up or shut up!
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: An argument for the existence of God
STOP DUCKING!!!attofishpi wrote:chaz wyman wrote:mickthinks wrote:]The question is valid Chaz, you made the assertion and micthinks is questioning the logic of your assertion.
What came first, the noun...a bird called a duck, then the verb became associated with it since it tends to fly low? Or vice versa?
I normally call it a Chaz copout but either way, as mickthinks said,
Why don't you show me how and why the the question is valid.
Put up or shut up!
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10011
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: An argument for the existence of God
How, or in what context is that a valid assertion?chaz wyman wrote:"...... you THINK that you know there is a God, but that is not the same as knowing it."
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: An argument for the existence of God
Because people believe things that are false all the time.attofishpi wrote:How, or in what context is that a valid assertion?chaz wyman wrote:"...... you THINK that you know there is a God, but that is not the same as knowing it."
Knowledge requires more that just wish fulfilment; and believing is not truth. It is yearning for truth, a claim of truth, a plea for truth.
I feel under no obligation to accept your claim of knowledge, though I acknowledge your claim for belief.
Any fool can claim knowledge. For example I know you are a 4' 1" dwarf.
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:54 am
Re: An argument for the existence of God
Huh Wuh! What, umm,,, people in the 21st century are still going for the god schtick and they have ipods also? WTF! I mean, the obvious analogy is,,,,,superstitious caveman marvels at the sharpness of the obsidian rock flake, lol
But I accept 'godness consciousness', nevertheless, because the people I love and respect believe in this almighty Dude, it is their constitution and I believe in the right of anyone to believe in whatever, as long as they don't ban beer, hah.
Why argue about it like Dawkins, just deal with tolerance and anyway, when the shit hits the fan, religionists always revert back to there instinctual drives, look at all the religious christian wars of the past 2000 yrs. Damn! All this hate over a presumed god, when us atheists sit on the porch drinking beer after some daily community building with some genuine religionists, whatever god, it's not worth arguing over, really. .
But I accept 'godness consciousness', nevertheless, because the people I love and respect believe in this almighty Dude, it is their constitution and I believe in the right of anyone to believe in whatever, as long as they don't ban beer, hah.
Why argue about it like Dawkins, just deal with tolerance and anyway, when the shit hits the fan, religionists always revert back to there instinctual drives, look at all the religious christian wars of the past 2000 yrs. Damn! All this hate over a presumed god, when us atheists sit on the porch drinking beer after some daily community building with some genuine religionists, whatever god, it's not worth arguing over, really. .
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10011
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: An argument for the existence of God
What is your point? That atheists invented the ipod and theists are superstitious idiots?Piltdownbrain wrote:Huh Wuh! What, umm,,, people in the 21st century are still going for the god schtick and they have ipods also? WTF! I mean, the obvious analogy is,,,,,superstitious caveman marvels at the sharpness of the obsidian rock flake, lol
This is what grinds my gears with you atheists. You think that atheism has a mandate on science which truly makes you rather pretentious. There are masses of theist scientists that can see past the dogma of religion, so get off your pedestal.
It is high time that all atheists have the intelligence to admit that they DONT comprehend the complexity of reality...thus the stance of agnosticism is far more reasonable.
Last edited by attofishpi on Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:33 am, edited 3 times in total.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10011
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: An argument for the existence of God
Well then, you truly are a fool.chaz wyman wrote:Any fool can claim knowledge. For example I know you are a 4' 1" dwarf.
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:54 am
Re: An argument for the existence of God
you're generous, I am more the agnostic, I have heard ghosts and seen strange lights and had premonitions, however, I do not construct an institution on mere superficialities, and I would rather such mysteries remain as they are. It also grinds my gears that theists likewise missionarianize(Jeezus, I invented a word)their spiritual narrative all over the world! My words are genetic reflex defence mechanisms.attofishpi wrote:What is your point? That atheists invented the ipod and theists are superstitious idiots?Piltdownbrain wrote:Huh Wuh! What, umm,,, people in the 21st century are still going for the god schtick and they have ipods also? WTF! I mean, the obvious analogy is,,,,,superstitious caveman marvels at the sharpness of the obsidian rock flake, lol
This is what grinds my gears with you atheists. You think that atheism has a mandate on science which truly makes you rather pretentious. There are masses of theist scientists that can see past the dogma of religion, so get off your pedestal.
It is high time that all atheists have the intelligence to admit that they DONT comprehend the complexity of reality...thus the stance of agnosticism is far more reasonable.
-
- Posts: 1523
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: An argument for the existence of God
This would have been reasonable if you had stopped there, chaz, but you went further than not accepting. You actually denied the claim as if you knew it were false. In other words, you made a competing knowledge claim, and you made it on the grounds that knowledge claims are foolish.chaz wyman wrote:I feel under no obligation to accept your claim of knowledge, though I acknowledge your claim for belief.
Now I think everyone else here can see how foolish that was of you, but you need it to be spelt out. No surprise there ...