-->
@FLRW
What type of evidence would you consider valid for God? I ask every militant atheist that question, they all dodge.
lesions or dodging. Either or.
I Didn’t Ask Anyone To Die For Me.
Posts
Total:
281
I believe that the Bible was written by people that had lesions in subregions of the prefrontal cortex. Because there was no science
at the time to refute these supernatural events, people who did not have this disfunctioning brain problem thought that maybe what they said was real.
We know now that the Inability to detect sarcasm and lies may be early signs of dementia.
-->
@rosends
Just before Moses reentered Egypt after his exile.
I'm not sure "exile" is the proper word. He fled voluntarily.
He could not return. Exile seems proper.
FLRW did not mention corroboration.
He mentioned the act's being done in a public and visible place. I assumed that this is becuase he wanted there to be corroboration.
The story in Exodus suffices. And he now claims he was being sarcastic.
The text is not anonymous, and ancient texts do not have "contemporary versions".
The text is anonymous (at least Exodus is...Deuteronomy sort of has a claimed author). And thank you -- I meant "contemporaneous."
OK. I'm sure you see the relevance to the topic.
And it was roundly ridiculed by atheists. Do you find Jim Baker more credible than Moses?
Nope. But at least one would be visible by others besides the person involved.
Seems to me then that if you were correct about his intent, he would have asked for a personal audience.
If it wasn't witnessed by more than one person or corroborated, how do you know about it?
The same way I know that Harry Potter ran through the column top get to Platform 9 and 3/4. A writer made a claim in print.
And? Or do you habitually disbelieve all authors? Or do you cherry pick which ones you will believe?
It is obvious to me that you'd be in the line to ridicule FLRW's so called valid evidence. And you're supposed to be a theist!
I absolutely would,...
Of course you would. The "evidence" is flimsy.
...but because I'm not looking for proof...
The question was about proof.
...and I know that any claim of proof is doomed, including equally claims using the bible and using a TV show.
Thank you for restating my point. Now we know why smart atheists don't ask for proof, and smarter ones do not offer any.
-->
@ethang5
He could not return. Exile seems proper.
Sure he could return -- no one forced him to leave and, in fact, he does return.
Seems to me then that if you were correct about his intent, he would have asked for a personal audience.
I assumed (possibly wrongly) that he was trying to find a way to have more widespread corroboration. If he had a personal audience in private then his reportage would be uncorroborated and as trustworthy as Moses'.
And? Or do you habitually disbelieve all authors? Or do you cherry pick which ones you will believe?
I have a natural leaning away from blanket belief of an author, yes. If an author claims that what he writes is non-fiction, then I might have a less jaundiced eye, but the biblical text has no clear author nor claim to literal accuracy.
-->
@FLRW
I believe that...
Thank you for telling us what you believe, though I doubt its what you believe but rather some quote taken from some website.
If you divulged your belief wanting us to take it as truth, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. But it was interesting. Thanks.
-->
@rosends
Sure he could return -- no one forced him to leave...
Sure, and risk punishment for murder. Exile seems proper. Most exiles do not leave under force.
..and, in fact, he does return.
Many exiles do return when conditions change. Being contrary for the sake of being contrary is not profitable Rosends. Make better use of your time.
Seems to me then that if you were correct about his intent, he would have asked for a personal audience.
I assumed (possibly wrongly) that he was trying to find a way to have more widespread corroboration.
You projected your bias.
If he had a personal audience in private then his reportage would be uncorroborated and as trustworthy as Moses'.
Moses is corroborated by billions and trusted by as many. But we will mark you as skeptical.
And? Or do you habitually disbelieve all authors? Or do you cherry pick which ones you will believe?
I have a natural leaning away from blanket belief of an author, yes.
History must be touch and go for you.
If an author claims that what he writes is non-fiction, then I might have a less jaundiced eye, but the biblical text has no clear author nor claim to literal accuracy.
Sure it does, your bias does not change reality. None-the-less, I don't really care what you do or don't believe. But thanks for sharing your doubt.
-->
@ethang5
No, it is not a quote from some web site. You can search and see that there is nothing to match it. I am one of the first
to prose this and I base it on the research paper, Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism, and the Human Prefrontal Cortex,
which I have talked about before. I believe in the next 100 years there will be a massive shift to Humanism and an abandonment of
Religion.
-->
@FLRW
No, it is not a quote from some web site. You can search and see that there is nothing to match it. I am one of the first
One of? Lol. OK.
to prose this and I base it on the research paper, Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism, and the Human Prefrontal Cortex,
Congrats.
which I have talked about before. I believe in the next 100 years there will be a massive shift to Humanism and an abandonment of Religion.
Jesus already told us that.
-->
@ethang5
Being contrary for the sake of being contrary is not profitable Rosends. Make better use of your time.
My time is best used exploring precision in language. I see voluntary exile as distinct from an exile which is an expulsion. If you wish to conflate the two, that is your prerogative.
You projected your bias.
Moses is corroborated by billions and trusted by as many. But we will mark you as skeptical.
No, his experience is not corroborated by anyone, either as witnesses or those who can offer material support. It is believed by many. Belief is not corroboration.
History must be touch and go for you.
it is a very complex subject, yes.
Sure it does, your bias does not change reality. None-the-less, I don't really care what you do or don't believe. But thanks for sharing your doubt.
Your calling something bias doesn't change the reality of the writing process, but since I am not affected by your labels, I thank you for your unsolicited input, though I think you could find something better to do with your time.
-->
@ethang5
Quote me, don't put words i n my mouth and then get bent when I point out your error.
You’re not pointing out any errors.
If you agreed that you liked torturing animals, and then I told you that’s sadistic. You would then turn around and say ‘I didn’t say it’s sadistic.’
That’s the level at which this is applicable. It’s moronic.
If it was the same you would not have changed it.
I like refining words just like anyone. They still mean the same thing.
I did explain what I said. I cannot explain what you said. If you cannot explain what you said then you have a problem don't you?
We’re talking about simple phrases, not multi-page essays.
”everywhere, including time” and “throughout time” are substantively the same thing when it comes to time.
Do I really have to break it down for you? “Everywhere” and “throughout” are close synonyms which essentially mean widespread.
Both phrases referred to time. Either you’re stupid or you don’t know how to concede arguments.
I told you that God does not exist IN time, as He is the creator of time. He can enter time, but does not need it to exist. Time does not flow for God the way it does for men. He is not limited by time in any way.
Yet you agreed God’s omnipresent (everywhere, including time). By the way, God being limited or not limited by time does matter when you use words such as precede. You have no arguments against that. All you have are pivots.
Wow! You're prophesying my argument BEFORE I make it and judging me as acting in bad faith just on your prophesy alone! Amazing. Do you ever lose any arguments?
You do go back on your words. You are a bad faith actor.
What does the bible say about testing God? You were invoking the bible a while back.
Asking atheists what would get them to believe in God, is pretty stupid if you like referring to the bible.
I can easily substantively reply to everything you say, though you don’t give me the same courtesy.
I’m probably not going to comment on everything you type next for practicality sakes.
-->
@rosends
If you wish to conflate the two,...
Lol. All I said was, "after his exile". I conflated nothing. You noted that he could return and I agreed and told you many exiles do return. You are kind of petty. But I am glad the quip burned you.
No, his experience is not corroborated by anyone, either as witnesses or those who can offer material support. It is believed by many. Belief is not corroboration.
Moses is corroborated by Jesus who said He was the " I am", and told us Moses wrote of Him. Jesus is the ultimate corroboration. Your opinion is just that, the opinion of another online person with an axe to grind.
History must be touch and go for you.
it is a very complex subject, yes.
"Complex" being liberal code for contradictory.
Sure it does, your bias does not change reality. None-the-less, I don't really care what you do or don't believe. But thanks for sharing your doubt.
Your calling something bias doesn't change the reality of the writing process, but since I am not affected by your labels, I thank you for your unsolicited input, though I think you could find something better to do with your time.
Lol! Keep confirming that you're getting burned. Remember, you first contacted me. And in my judgement, toasting you is a good, and highly enjoyable, use of my time.
-->
@Reece101
Quote me, don't put words i n my mouth and then get bent when I point out your error.
You’re not pointing out any errors.
Attributing to me, something I didn't say, is either an error or a lie. I was being generous to you.
If you agreed that you liked torturing animals, and then I told you that’s sadistic. You would then turn around and say ‘I didn’t say it’s sadistic.’
False analogy. Be safe and honest by just quoting me, not using your paraphrase to interpret me.
That’s the level at which this is applicable. It’s moronic.
There was no reason for me to call you moronic, everyone could see that you were. I never insult anyone without provocation.
If it was the same you would not have changed it.
I like refining words just like anyone. They still mean the same thing.
Refine your own words. I say what I mean and mean what I say. I simply will not be drawn into having to explain your words. Keep bellyaching, that will not change.
I did explain what I said. I cannot explain what you said. If you cannot explain what you said then you have a problem don't you?
We’re talking about simple phrases, not multi-page essays.
Then there was even less justification for you to change it, no?
”everywhere, including time” and “throughout time” are substantively the same thing when it comes to time.
Untrue. Your first phrase above has no verb. Existing is the verb it deletes. Existing everywhere, including time, is not the same as existing "throughout time". Your phrase implies God exists only in time. No wonder you came to the incorrect conclusion that - therefore God does not precede everything.
Do I really have to break it down for you? “Everywhere” and “throughout” are close synonyms which essentially mean widespread.
What are you fighting for? To be able to chose words for me? That will never happen. Your paraphrase changes my meaning, as evidenced by your erroneous conclusion. Use my words.
Both phrases referred to time. Either you’re stupid or you don’t know how to concede arguments.
Two things are not synonymous simply because they refer to the same thing. You may beg for me to "concede", but you will win concessions through honest logical arguments, not simple insistence that you get to interpret my comments.
I told you that God does not exist IN time, as He is the creator of time. He can enter time, but does not need it to exist. Time does flow for God the way it does for men. He is not limited by time in any way.
Yet you agreed God’s omnipresent (everywhere, including time).
Because the "throughout" in your paraphrase, which you say is synonymous to "everywhere in my comment, is limited to time. The "everywhere" in my comment is not limited to time, but includes time. Squint, if that will help you think.
By the way, God being limited or not limited by time does matter when you use words such as precede. You have no arguments against that. All you have are pivots.
We are creatures trapped in time genius, we have no language for "outside" of time. We are speaking of God, not men, words take meaning from their context. And I told you before your dishonest paraphrase, that God existed outside of time. You have no excuse.
Wow! You're prophesying my argument BEFORE I make it and judging me as acting in bad faith just on your prophesy alone! Amazing. Do you ever lose any arguments?
You do go back on your words. You are a bad faith actor.
Your comment to FLRW was future tense about something I had not yet done. If my "faith" is bad, it's because I have none for your prophetic powers.
What does the bible say about testing God? You were invoking the bible a while back.
I did not bring up testing, and it has no pertinence here. You thought it was something I might do, fine, but then you went on to convict me on your prophesy alone as if I was already guilty.
Asking atheists what would get them to believe in God, is pretty stupid if you like referring to the bible.
The question has nothing to do with the bible. It is atheists always coming to a religion board to tell us they find no valid evidence for God. Asking atheists what evidence they would consider valid is a reasonable question.
You just changed the words again. I never ask militant atheists what would get them to believe in God, because I know nothing will. My question is, "what evidence atheists would consider valid?" Satan "believes" in God.
I can easily substantively reply to everything you say,....I’m probably not going to comment on everything you type next for practicality sakes....
Do you detect a contradiction?
...though you don’t give me the same courtesy.
If I miss anything you say, just point it out to me. But if you dodge my questions, I will give yours similar respect.
-->
@ethang5
Attributing to me, something I didn't say, is either an error or a lie.
What did I attribute to you that both of us disagree the meaning of? I’ve already explained what I meant which doesn’t nullify the original statement you agreed on. “Precede” still applies to the original agreement.
Everything underneath is meaningless to the substance of the conversation, but who cares, I’m going to reply anyway.
I was being generous to you
How are you being generous to me? In terms of how unsubstantial your replies are? In that case I’ll be generous to you too.
False analogy.
How is it a false analogy?
Be safe and honest by just quoting me, not using your paraphrase to interpret me.
Why don’t you just directly argue against it instead of just taking such a weak stance.
There was no reason for me to call you moronic, everyone could see that you were.
I didn’t say you called me moronic. Can you please quote me instead of just using your “paraphrase to interpret me.”
I never insult anyone without provocation
Me neither.
If it was the same you would not have changed it.
Like when you call a human by name? Yeah, people specify meanings with words which have common understandings.
Refine your own words.
That’s what I did. Did I misquote you anywhere?
I say what I mean and mean what I say.
That’s nice. Same here.
I simply will not be drawn into having to explain your words.
You don’t have to because I explained them for you.
Keep bellyaching, that will not change.
Is that a threat?
Then there was even less justification for you to change it, no?
Justification? They mean the same thing. “Throughout time” is just cleaner to understand than “everywhere, including time”
By the way “time” is the key word when it comes to “precede.”
Untrue. Your first phrase above has no verb. Existing is the verb it deletes. Existing everywhere, including time, is not the same as existing "throughout time". Your phrase implies God exists only in time. No wonder you came to the incorrect conclusion that - therefore God does not precede everything.
God being limited or not limited by time does matter when you use words such as precede.
What are you fighting for?
You should be asking yourself that question. You keep on pivoting to arguments which have already have been resolved.
To be able to chose words for me?
I am not wanting to choose any words for you. You’re the one that has an issue with the words I’m using (which have a common meaning by the way).
That will never happen.
Ummmm okay.
Your paraphrase changes my meaning, as evidenced by your erroneous conclusion.
You meaning of what?
Use my words
Your only word that’s relevant to the main conversation is “correct.”
Two things are not synonymous simply because they refer to the same thing.
If you do a quick search, it will show that you’re wrong.
You may beg for me to "concede", but you will win concessions through honest logical arguments, not simple insistence that you get to interpret my comments.
Which comments?
I told you that God does not exist IN time, as He is the creator of time. He can enter time, but does not need it to exist. Time does flow for God the way it does for men. He is not limited by time in any way.
Yet you agreed God’s omnipresent (everywhere, including time). Comment #155
Because the "throughout" in your paraphrase, which you say is synonymous to "everywhere in my comment, is limited to time. The "everywhere" in my comment is not limited to time, but includes time. Squint, if that will help you think
In context I was talking about God. The resembles little of what I said. You’re just mashing words together.
We are creatures trapped in time genius, we have no language for "outside" of time.
You can be a theologian and hijack science lingo from actual geniuses. Delve into some quantum mechanics.
We are speaking of God, not men, words take meaning from their context. And I told you before your dishonest paraphrase, that God existed outside of time. You have no excuse.
You’re the one that hasn’t conceded the word “precede.”
Wow! You're prophesying my argument BEFORE I make it and judging me as acting in bad faith just on your prophesy alone!
Well are you going to give any arguments in that regard?
Amazing.
Thank you.
Do you ever lose any arguments?
Not many.
Your comment to FLRW was future tense about something I had not yet done. If my "faith" is bad, it's because I have none for your prophetic powers
Perhaps praying will help you calm down.
I did not bring up testing, and it has no pertinence here.
How doesn’t it have pertinence?
You thought it was something I might do, fine, but then you went on to convict me on your prophesy alone as if I was already guilty.
Guilty of changing your position when you come to the conclusion God’s unfalsifiable just like that dragon in the garage?
The question has nothing to do with the bible.
Though it will lead you to the bible.
It is atheists always coming to a religion board to tell us they find no valid evidence for God. Asking atheists what evidence they would consider valid is a reasonable question.
The more knowledge humans gain, the less God/gods are involved in our physical lives. God is now an abstract being that would make no sense to a farmer 2000 years ago.
You just changed the words again. I never ask militant atheists what would get them to believe in God, because I know nothing will. My question is, "what evidence atheists would consider valid?
For God to convince me to believe in him.
" Satan "believes" in God.
Satan was part of God’s plan. You agreed God’s omniscient, correct?
That means God knows everything. Are you going to try to nerf that as well?
Do you detect a contradiction?
No. Easy work can become tedious if there’s enough of it.
If I miss anything you say, just point it out to me. But if you dodge my questions, I will give yours similar respect.
Same here. :)
-->
@Reece101
Why don’t you just directly argue against it instead of just taking such a weak stance.
If insisting that you attribute the correct words to me is "weakness" then so be it. Use MY words.
There was no reason for me to call you moronic, everyone could see that you were.
I didn’t say you called me moronic.
I didn't say you did.
Can you please quote me instead of just using your “paraphrase to interpret me.”
I used no paraphrase, I did no interpretation.
I never insult anyone without provocation
Me neither.
Uh-huh. But I'm moronic.
If it was the same you would not have changed it.
Like when you call a human by name? Yeah, people specify meanings with words which have common understandings.
Huh?? Lol.
Refine your own words.
That’s what I did. Did I misquote you anywhere?
You tried to "refine" my words. Don't do that.
I say what I mean and mean what I say.
That’s nice. Same here.
That's why I don't change the meaning of your words.
I simply will not be drawn into having to explain your words.
You don’t have to because I explained them for you.
Don't attribute them to me.
Keep bellyaching, that will not change.
Is that a threat?
Lol!! What? That I will not concede to your silliness?
Then there was even less justification for you to change it, no?
Justification? They mean the same thing.
They do not.
“Throughout time” is just cleaner to understand than “everywhere, including time”
Throughout time is limited to inside of time.
By the way “time” is the key word when it comes to “precede.”
Precede applies to "existing". God is outside of time.
Your first phrase above has no verb. Existing is the verb it deletes. Existing everywhere, including time, is not the same as existing "throughout time". Your phrase implies God exists only in time. No wonder you came to the incorrect conclusion that - therefore God does not precede everything.
God being limited or not limited by time does matter when you use words such as precede.
Nope. God has qualities that change meanings of words used for him.
What are you fighting for?
You should be asking yourself that question. You keep on pivoting to arguments which have already have been resolved.
Untrue. Nothing has been resolved. You want me to accept your silly interpretation. I will not.
To be able to chose words for me?
I am not wanting to choose any words for you.
Thanks, then accept that I did not say "throughout" time.
You’re the one that has an issue with the words I’m using (which have a common meaning by the way).
Your words did not mean what I said. My words did. Use my words.
That will never happen.
Ummmm okay.
Then stop whining about it.
Your paraphrase changes my meaning, as evidenced by your erroneous conclusion.
You meaning of what?
God preceding time.
Use my words
Your only word that’s relevant to the main conversation is “correct.”
All my words are relevant. And I am the one who determines their relevance, not you.
Two things are not synonymous simply because they refer to the same thing.
If you do a quick search, it will show that you’re wrong.
Reece is clueless and ugly. Are "clueless" and "ugly" referring to Reece? Yes. Are "clueless" and "ugly synonymous? No.
You may beg for me to "concede", but you will win concessions through honest logical arguments, not simple insistence that you get to interpret my comments.
Which comments?
I told you that God does not exist IN time, as He is the creator of time. He can enter time, but does not need it to exist. Time does flow for God the way it does for men. He is not limited by time in any way.
Yet you agreed God’s omnipresent (everywhere, including time). Comment #155
Because the "throughout" in your paraphrase, which you say is synonymous to "everywhere in my comment, is limited to time. The "everywhere" in my comment is not limited to time, but includes time. Squint, if that will help you think
In context I was talking about God. The resembles little of what I said. You’re just mashing words together.
Use my words anyway.
We are creatures trapped in time genius, we have no language for "outside" of time.
You can be a theologian and hijack science lingo from actual geniuses. Delve into some quantum mechanics.
What is the science lingo for existing outside of time?
We are speaking of God, not men, words take meaning from their context. And I told you before your dishonest paraphrase, that God existed outside of time. You have no excuse.
You’re the one that hasn’t conceded the word “precede.”
I used the word precede. Words can have more than one meaning, and take their meaning from context. There is nothing for me to concede.
Wow! You're prophesying my argument BEFORE I make it and judging me as acting in bad faith just on your prophesy alone!
Well are you going to give any arguments in that regard?
Nope. It is not relevant here.
Do you ever lose any arguments?
Not many.
You must often debate noobs.
Your comment to FLRW was future tense about something I had not yet done. If my "faith" is bad, it's because I have none for your prophetic powers
Perhaps praying will help you calm down.
Lol!! You militants always broadcast your frustration.
I did not bring up testing, and it has no pertinence here.
How doesn’t it have pertinence?
If it does, please show how. You brought it up. It has no pertinence to my argument.
You thought it was something I might do, fine, but then you went on to convict me on your prophesy alone as if I was already guilty.
Guilty of changing your position when you come to the conclusion God’s unfalsifiable just like that dragon in the garage?
Nope, you said I was going to say God cannot be tested. That was prophesy. The silly dragon thing has been eviscerated. You did not respond to my debunking of it.
The question has nothing to do with the bible.
Though it will lead you to the bible.
Another prophesy? At least wait till your prophesies have come true before you start convicting and preening.
It is atheists always coming to a religion board to tell us they find no valid evidence for God. Asking atheists what evidence they would consider valid is a reasonable question.
The more knowledge humans gain, the less God/gods are involved in our physical lives. God is now an abstract being that would make no sense to a farmer 2000 years ago.
Christian farmers 2,000 years ago is why you are talking about God today. It is a valid question.
You just changed the words again. I never ask militant atheists what would get them to believe in God, because I know nothing will. My question is, "what evidence atheists would consider valid?
For God to convince me to believe in him.
Nope. I said nothing about believing IN Him. It is possible to believe God exists and NOT believe IN Him. Like Satan.
Satan was part of God’s plan. You agreed God’s omniscient, correct?
So? It is still possible to believe God exists and NOT believe IN Him. Stop trying to pivot.
That means God knows everything. Are you going to try to nerf that as well?
No one can see inside your cluttered head Jedthro. I said nothing about believing IN God. It is possible to believe God exists and NOT believe in Him. Like Satan.
Do you detect a contradiction?
No. Easy work can become tedious if there’s enough of it.
Easy work is like sloppy thinking then.
If I miss anything you say, just point it out to me. But if you dodge my questions, I will give yours similar respect.
Same here. :)
Good to know.
-->
@ethang5
If I miss anything you say, just point it out to me. But if you dodge my questions, I will give yours similar respect.
Can you please reply to everything and I’ll reply back.
When The Truth became incarnate, it gave reality to all things.
When The Incarnate Truth became death and rose again, death itself was conquered, and all things that came to be and ceased to be rose up again with Him. All that was, is, and will ever be will be present at the ressurection of all things, where the very Light of Truth that is paradise to all who put their trust in Him will be the same fire of hell that burns those who preferred unrighteousness to The Truth.
-->
@ethang5
I'm not sure what you think "burning" someone is. Based in how I used it growing up, it certainly isn't what you are doing. But since you play fast and loose with language (like conflating "exile" and "voluntary exile") then you will use it however you want.
In terms of corroboration, you are now claiming that someone who supposedly lived well after an event can corroborate that event because you equate him with the phrase "I am" (which, by the way, is not an actual statement God made). That is a statement of belief from within your context of belief. You insist that that makes it some sort of fact, but it doesn't. You cannot corroborate an event that happened 1000 years ago.
"Complex" being liberal code for contradictory.
No, "complex" meaning that I recognize inherent human bias in presenting a perception of fact.
And in my judgement, toasting you is a good, and highly enjoyable, use of my time.
OK, in the same way, I enjoy pointing out your errors. Cheers!
-->
@rosends
I'm not sure what you think "burning" someone is. Based in how I used it growing up, it certainly isn't what you are doing. But since you play fast and loose with language (like conflating "exile" and "voluntary exile") then you will use it however you want.
Lol. If a person was afraid of being found out a murderer, and left under that fear, it wasn't really voluntary. Plus your question had nothing to do with exile, so I said "... after his exile" there was no reason for me to specify the type of exile, and you think so shows you are anal.
In terms of corroboration, you are now claiming that someone who supposedly lived well after an event can corroborate that event because you equate him with the phrase "I am"
No.
(which, by the way, is not an actual statement God made).
Do you have any witnesses and any corroboration?
That is a statement of belief from within your context of belief. You insist that that makes it some sort of fact, but it doesn't. You cannot corroborate an event that happened 1000 years ago.
I didn't say I corroborated anything.
"Complex" being liberal code for contradictory.
No, "complex" meaning that I recognize inherent human bias in presenting a perception of fact.
Except in yourself. Typical.
And in my judgement, toasting you is a good, and highly enjoyable, use of my time.
OK, in the same way, I enjoy pointing out your errors. Cheers!
Yeah, you sound happy. Wait, sorry, you sound voluntarily happy. Wouldn't want to be accused of conflating happy and voluntarily happy by some anal retentive now, would I?
-->
@Reece101
If I miss anything you say, just point it out to me. But if you dodge my questions, I will give yours similar respect.
Can you please reply to everything and I’ll reply back.
Nope. I will reply to questions and comments that are pertinent. I will not respond to every off the cuff silly little anti-theist pivot that crosses your mind.
I've learned that atheists will ooze to another topic the moment you beat them if you allow it. I am no longer a noob.
-->
@ethang5
Nope. I will reply to questions and comments that are pertinent. I will not respond to every off the cuff silly little anti-theist pivot that crosses your mind.I've learned that atheists will ooze to another topic the moment you beat them if you allow it. I am no longer a noob.
You started it. Don’t you see that. You didn’t even reply to my main argument.
-->
@Reece101
OK, please tell me what your main argument was.
-->
@ethang5
If God simultaneously exists throughout time, he does not precede anything. Past, present and future all exist equally. For something to precede, it requires time by definition.
You would like to change the definition of precede, correct?
-->
@Reece101
It is more proper to call God pre-eternal. The Ultimate Reality is what gives existence to time, and anything that exists.
It isn't in a tenporal sense that God precedes time. It is that apart from The Truth, there is no time. The Truth is not contingent on time.
-->
@Mopac
It is more proper to call God pre-eternal. The Ultimate Reality is what gives existence to time, and anything that exists.
Keeping in mind that pre-eternal and ultimate reality are both phrases which have an underlying assumption God exists.
Other than that I agree pre-eternal is a better descriptor. Saying “ultimate reality gives existence to time, and anything that exists,” is the same as saying the dragon in my garage is ultimate reality.
It isn't in a tenporal sense that God precedes time. It is that apart from The Truth, there is no time. The Truth is not contingent on time.
“Precede” is irrelevant if there’s no temporal sense. What is “Truth” contingent on if not spacetime (what constitutes our existence)?
-->
@Reece101
Saying “ultimate reality gives existence to time, and anything that exists,” is the same as saying the dragon in my garage is ultimate reality.
No it isn't, and this is a nonsensical argument.
Ultimate Reality means that which truly exists, reality in the truest sense of the word. If you deny ultimate reality, you are professing nihilism. In professing nihilism, you remove any ground you could stand on.
If there is no Ultimate Reality, then time doesn't exist. In fact, nothing exists.
-->
@Reece101
“Precede” is irrelevant if there’s no temporal sense. What is “Truth” contingent on if not spacetime (what constitutes our existence)?
The Truth is The Singularity without contingency. It is Uncreated. Everything that isn't divine is creation, having contingency. The Ultimate Reality is not a contingent existence. The Ultimate Reality is God.
-->
@Mopac
No it isn't, and this is a nonsensical argument.Ultimate Reality means that which truly exists, reality in the truest sense of the word. If you deny ultimate reality, you are professing nihilism. In professing nihilism, you remove any ground you could stand on.If there is no Ultimate Reality, then time doesn't exist. In fact, nothing exists.
To clarify, are you defining ultimate reality with the assumption of your specific gods existence— creating the universe?
The Truth is The Singularity without contingency. It is Uncreated. Everything that isn't divine is creation, having contingency. The Ultimate Reality is not a contingent existence. The Ultimate Reality is God.
Truth is knowledge. Conceptually (the only form it exists in) it’s contingent on observation and intelligence.
Saying “Ultimate Reality” is God is nonsensical to me! I gave you that dragon analogy to show you that.
-->
@ethang5
Lol. If a person was afraid of being found out a murderer, and left under that fear, it wasn't really voluntary. Plus your question had nothing to do with exile, so I said "... after his exile" there was no reason for me to specify the type of exile, and you think so shows you are anal.
If you think that that's what it shows then you will continue to celebrate inaccuracy of language.
Do you have any witnesses and any corroboration?
Of what?
I didn't say I corroborated anything.
I didn't claim that you did. I said you cannot. That could be taken either as a specific statement about you, or as a generic statement of the inability of anyone to corroborate that which he was not privy to personally.
Except in yourself. Typical.
I don't recall saying that, so your response, imputing it to me is inaccurate.
-->
@Reece101
If God simultaneously exists throughout time, he does not precede anything. Past, present and future all exist equally. For something to precede, it requires time by definition.
I addressed this. Just because you're pretending not to have seen it doesn't make it disappear.
You would like to change the definition of precede, correct?
Nope. I just want you to use the definition from the context I gave, not your childish idea that words can only have one meaning regardless of context.
-->
@Reece101
Knowledge is a created thing, it is contingent on a knower. The Truth can not be knowledge.
The God of Truth is greater than knowledge and intelligence.