a question for all of you

[His_child]

neo and nimble-
There will always be things beyond your comprehension.
Something does not cease to exist just because it goes against human reasoning.

[His_child]

neo and nimble-
There will always be things beyond your comprehension.
Something does not cease to exist just because it goes against human reasoning.

If god is beyond your comprehension, how do you know that he exists? And your argument seems to be composed of that stupid human reasoning.

Just because He's beyond your comprehension does not mean He is beyond everyone's comprehension.  

You best be careful how you word your posts. Some of us on this board found out there is a God because we didn't have a college professor spoon feeding us the ideas of man. Others on this board found out there is a God in spite of what their college professors taught them.

[His_child]

hmm...so is that a personal attack? I think that was an attack on my integrity. Correct me if im wrong? I am here to discuss ideas, not make personal attacks on any of you. I would apppreciate it if you would refrain from doing so. I wouldnt get into the idea of being spoon fed ideas, when your only source of reference is one book written by man and his stupid human reasoning.

Since you confessed in the other thread that you have not read the Bible, I would suggest you refrain from critiquing it.
That would be kind of like me telling you how stupid a movie is when I've seen nothing more than the trailer for the movie. It would not be accurate at all.

[nimble]

i have yet to mention the bible. Can you quote me? I only argue that "God exists" is a contradiction in terms. I have yet to plunge into bible.

[ollie]

If I am to understand them correctly, they believe that existence is composed of two realms: a "natural" one (in which we reside) and a "supernatural" one (in which God "resides").

So, they can claim that God is supernatural (and therefore also epistemologically transcendant) while also maintaining that he does indeed "exist."

There are two realms, the natural, and the spiritual.
The natural exists and is the created. God does not exist in the natural as he is spirit and is the creator. The natural exists in a created time frame surrounded by the eternity of the spiritual. This created time frame has set limits and will one day end and all will be eternal. How one approaches and listens to the creator, believing Him or not believing Him, will determine their judgement and habitat for the eternal.

Ollie

[His_child]

i have yet to mention the bible. Can you quote me? I only argue that "God exists" is a contradiction in terms. I have yet to plunge into bible.

Then what book are you referring to here?

when your only source of reference is one book written by man and his stupid human reasoning.

[michael_legna]

If something flies in the face of human reasoning (i.e., the Christian God) it is generally discredited until and unless it is somehow proven to be more likely to exist than not.

That is only if you restrict yourself to one paradigm - that of science.  But that is only one way of knowing and it has its limits.  So there are somethings that fly in the face of reason and are not discredited when understood within the paradigm of religious faith.

Again I ask: If we can't use human reasoning, whose can we use? Certainly not God's; it would be beyond our capacity to even understand, let alone make use of.

We go beyond human reason and respond to the light God grants us to have faith.

[michael_legna]

no philosophy isnt about semantics. And if you want to know where I got the definition, it was from a Merriam Webster dictionary (1997).

Philosophy is not about semantics but philosophical arguments never get anywhere until the definitions used are agreed to.

Thanks for providing the source of your definition.  It helps me know where you are coming from (since there is inherent bias - in even dictionaries (as I am sure you would be quick to point out if I were to reference a theological dictionary to offer competing definitions)

Lets start by finding a common ground, an axiom if you will. Axiom is a self-evident truth. I think the only axiom we need for this argument is existence exists. This is the foundation for the law of identity, which is A=A. A thing is what it is, not what you want it to be. Do we agree on that?

I can agree with the definition of existance and the axiom but I do not expect to make much progress from them as they are too basic.

And as for defining myself, I am composed of matter, which makes cells, which makes organs, which makes my mind, which makes my personality and consciousness. I could describe every hair on my head and relate it to sensory information.

Have you read the Thaeatetus?  Do you really thing that vague a definition (with the unproven claim that you could provide the details if pushed) would satisfy Plato?  No way.

One specific error in your definition is that your cells and organs make up your mind.  That has never been proven within any of the sciences.

As for god, what definition does he have?

There are many.  I accept Thomas Aquinas' definition from the Summa Theologica but it covers many chapters and cannot be properly summarized here as would only make sense for the attributes of the supreme being.

If you can provide me with one sensory based evidence of god, backed by logical proof of his existence, you will convert me back to christian in a second. Until then, we may just have to wait until death to find out.

There is plenty of sensory evidence, documented miracles galore, completely unexpalinable by science.  But none qualify as conclusive.  If you had conclusive sensory evidence of the existence of God it would do you no good - you could not become a Christian (as you promise), because you would KNOW God existed - you would not have FAITH.  The two are mutually exclsuive.

[ebia]

I have yet to see a definition of god in 3 pages of responses. Way to dodge the question. I will not respond until i see one.

You make statements, claims, and "proofs", and refuse to address the points raised about them.  You apparently have less than a seven minute memory of what you said yourself, but refuse to address it when caught on the point by two posters.  You attempt to dictate how others respond to your post.   Spot the Troll.

[ollie]

I have yet to see a definition of god in 3 pages of responses. Way to dodge the question. I will not respond until i see one.

A definition was not asked. Go back and read the original starting post. However here are some definitions of God.

God is spirit.

God is creator.

God is love.

God is not a man.

God is a consuming fire.

God is a jealous God.

God is a merciful God.

God is one.

God is God of gods and Lord of lords.

God is refuge.

God is strength and power.

God is gracious.

God is greater than man.

God is mighty in strength and wisdom.

God is great.

God is angry with the wicked.

God is a very present help in trouble.

God is King of all the earth.

God is judge.

God is salvation.

God is the rock of refuge.

God is holy.

God is pure.

God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

God is true.

God is no respecter of persons:

God is hope.

God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

There is much more to God but perhaps that will give you a start into defining God.

Ollie

[nChrist]

Bronzesnake Said:

neo my friend. If only you would put aside your cynicism and approach God with humility and honesty. You would then begin to understand the real meaning of His words, instead of using them out of context, as a platform for sarcasm.

Bronzesnake.

Oklahoma Howdy to Bronzesnake,

Brother, I don't think it is sarcasm on Neo's part. It's trolling and Christian hunting. We are the prey, and he is the superior intellect hunting us, or so he thinks. He's really pretty sad.

I've been down without a computer for over a week, and this is my first day back with a working computer. We both know there is nothing morally bankrupt about the Holy Bible. In fact, we both know that the Holy Bible is the cure for Neo, but it is currently an object of scorn and mockery for Neo.

I think that we all need to pray for Neo, but he will consider that another joke about intellectually inferior Christians. He's pretty sad.

Love In Christ,
Tom

[JudgeNot]

Ollie;
As you posted so completely:
God IS

Amen brother!

[nChrist]

I have yet to see a definition of god in 3 pages of responses. Way to dodge the question. I will not respond until i see one.

You make statements, claims, and "proofs", and refuse to address the points raised about them.  You apparently have less than a seven minute memory of what you said yourself, but refuse to address it when caught on the point by two posters.  You attempt to dictate how others respond to your post.   Spot the Troll.

Ebia,

I must agree with you for once. Neo and Nimble are both trolls hunting Christians. You have a target on your back also.

Tom

[Bronzesnake]

Bronzesnake Said:

neo my friend. If only you would put aside your cynicism and approach God with humility and honesty. You would then begin to understand the real meaning of His words, instead of using them out of context, as a platform for sarcasm.

Bronzesnake.

Oklahoma Howdy to Bronzesnake,

Brother, I don't think it is sarcasm on Neo's part. It's trolling and Christian hunting. We are the prey, and he is the superior intellect hunting us, or so he thinks. He's really pretty sad.

I've been down without a computer for over a week, and this is my first day back with a working computer. We both know there is nothing morally bankrupt about the Holy Bible. In fact, we both know that the Holy Bible is the cure for Neo, but it is currently an object of scorn and mockery for Neo.

I think that we all need to pray for Neo, but he will consider that another joke about intellectually inferior Christians. He's pretty sad.

Love In Christ,
Tom

 Hello my brother. Glad to have you back on the job!

 I agree, we're being hunted, but I have bullet proof body armour, bought and paid for by Jesus!

Bronzesnake.

[His_child]

Nimble-
It's too bad you really didn't want answers.
If you did you would have started a thread yourself and asked direct questions in that thread.
Also, you would have attempted to listen instead of attempting to discredit others.
When you ask questions about other areas of life, do you ask them with the intention of learning from the person or the intention of discrediting the person?
It makes a big difference in the answers you receive.