God, from concept to existence

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Would you like me to give you an example of "what's true for me is not true for you"; that you might agree with?

No!... Please, no! I just find you funny! Unlike others here, I don't expect you capable of understanding much. They are optimists, I am a realist!

FL

[Kenny]

Would you like me to give you an example of "what's true for me is not true for you"; that you might agree with?

No!... Please, no! I just find you funny! Unlike others here, I don't expect you capable of understanding much. They are optimists, I am a realist!

FL

Oh I get it you are' not here for actual conversation; you're just here to insult. Wow! And for a moment there I thought you were better than that

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Oh I get it you are' not here for actual conversation; you're just here to insult. Wow! And for a moment there I thought you were better than that

I love it when you put your foot in your mouth! I told you that I thought you were funny. And, no, I'm "not better than that" ...nor are you but I doubt you have the insight to see that yet.

FL

[abelcainsbrother]

Kenny

Don't you value evidence for what you believe or reasons to believe what you do that are not just opinions?I mean sure you can have your opinion and you can choose to believe it,but what good is it without real substance behind it?

Many here have explained to you why they believe in God and have given you logical,rational and even evidence for God and yet you seem to ignore the substance and instead focus on what you think are insults and you focus on this instead of the substance of the argument.

Yet when it comes down to what you believe it is nonrational,non-logical with no reason to really believe it,but you do anyway.Don't you know that Christians will not intentionally trick you or force you to change your mind?Yet no matter how much we give you,in return we get a hard-headed opinion.Nobody can or will change your mind for you but I would just like to understand how you can believe what you do based on an opinionated decision to reject God at all costs.

Even if you reject God at least find substantive reasons to believe what you do without just a misunderstanding of God and his word.

Also it is quite common for people to differ here or there no matter what people believe so that is not a reason to reject God.

[Kenny]

Kenny
Don't you value evidence for what you believe or reasons to believe what you do that are not just opinions?

Yes evidence is very important to me

I mean sure you can have your opinion and you can choose to believe it,but what good is it without real substance behind it?

I agree!

Many here have explained to you why they believe in God and have given you logical,rational and even evidence for God and yet you seem to ignore the substance

Can you give an example? I mean I have refuted many claims for God, but I can’t remember ignoring any of them. And it does go both ways too; I try to respect the opinions of others, but I would also like my opinions respected as well

and instead focus on what you think are insults and you focus on this instead of the substance of the argument.

If you are referring to the last person I conversed with; I can assure you he had no interest in civil conversation. He provided no substance, he only provided insults. I suspect he was only looking for a fight. I chose to ignore him instead

Yet when it comes down to what you believe it is nonrational,non-logical with no reason to really believe it,but you do anyway.

again; can you provide any examples?

Don't you know that Christians will not intentionally trick you or force you to change your mind?

I wouldn’t use the term “force” or “trick” but I have no problem with Christians trying to convince me to change my mind; as long as they show me the same respect and courtsy I show them. Is that too much to ask?

Yet no matter how much we give you,in return we get a hard-headed opinion.

Are you suggesting I shouldn’t express my opinion? Would you prefer I pretend what you say makes sense to me even though it does not? Would you prefer I pretend to convert to your beliefs when I actually do not? Would you prefer I lied just to make you feel better? Or would you prefer the truth.

Nobody can or will change your mind for you but I would just like to understand how you can believe what you do based on an opinionated decision to reject God at all costs.

I don't

Even if you reject God at least find substantive reasons to believe what you do without just a misunderstanding of God and his word.

I do.

[Proinsias]

Debating with an atheist is like playing chess with a monkey. No matter how good you are, Jac, the monkey will knock over all the pieces, defecate on the board and claim victory.

FL

Of course. But what better way to demonstrate to passersby who might be inclinced to believe claims that the monkey can play than let him play and act out his nature. I realize that folks like you and me benefit nothing whatsoever from this conversation, but there are others who do read this material. I put up with his shenanigans--in large part, I give him the stage to act them out--to give those other people a chance to see it and think, "Oh Lord, please God, don't let me end up like that!" On another board I post at from time to time, I had a resident atheist's quote in my sig box just for that effect. It went something like, "Well how do you KNOW that a rock ISN'T alive?!?" The quote spoke for itself. People with stupid worldviews say stupid things. You know, knowing a tree by its fruit and all that.

The founder of Greek philosphy firmly answered this with 'there is no difference'. It would seem more appropriate to have Thales in your sig explaning there is no difference between life & death, and that inanimate objects are living souls. The intro to the Stanford entry on life states:
"It must be remembered that evolutionary phenomena are an inextricable aspect of living systems; any attempt to define life in the absence of this diachronic perspective will be futile."
Combined with your view that the earth is relatively young, ie not in the billions of years, you can surely see the difficulties in disussing life and rocks with somone who seems content to dismiss much of the past 500 hundred years or so of philosophy, geology & biology in favour of scholastic metaphysics alongside a holy book.

Signing off posts with an example of someone questioning your knowledge..and bragging about it...and just incase we missed it* spelling out how stupid they are......please Lord don't let me end up like that

*which i would have done as I turn off sigs on message boards.

[1over137]

Here are discussions guidelines, section mannerism
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... hp?f=2&t=4
(FL, for you especially)

[Nicki]

Debating with an atheist is like playing chess with a monkey. No matter how good you are, Jac, the monkey will knock over all the pieces, defecate on the board and claim victory.

FL

Of course. But what better way to demonstrate to passersby who might be inclinced to believe claims that the monkey can play than let him play and act out his nature. I realize that folks like you and me benefit nothing whatsoever from this conversation, but there are others who do read this material. I put up with his shenanigans--in large part, I give him the stage to act them out--to give those other people a chance to see it and think, "Oh Lord, please God, don't let me end up like that!" On another board I post at from time to time, I had a resident atheist's quote in my sig box just for that effect. It went something like, "Well how do you KNOW that a rock ISN'T alive?!?" The quote spoke for itself. People with stupid worldviews say stupid things. You know, knowing a tree by its fruit and all that.

The founder of Greek philosphy firmly answered this with 'there is no difference'. It would seem more appropriate to have Thales in your sig explaning there is no difference between life & death, and that inanimate objects are living souls. The intro to the Stanford entry on life states:
"It must be remembered that evolutionary phenomena are an inextricable aspect of living systems; any attempt to define life in the absence of this diachronic perspective will be futile."
Combined with your view that the earth is relatively young, ie not in the billions of years, you can surely see the difficulties in disussing life and rocks with somone who seems content to dismiss much of the past 500 hundred years or so of philosophy, geology & biology in favour of scholastic metaphysics alongside a holy book.

Signing off posts with an example of someone questioning your knowledge..and bragging about it...and just incase we missed it* spelling out how stupid they are......please Lord don't let me end up like that

*which i would have done as I turn off sigs on message boards.

If you're talking about Jac, I find his signature very funny - it gave me a good giggle.

[Jac3510]

The founder of Greek philosphy firmly answered this with 'there is no difference'. It would seem more appropriate to have Thales in your sig explaning there is no difference between life & death, and that inanimate objects are living souls. The intro to the Stanford entry on life states:
"It must be remembered that evolutionary phenomena are an inextricable aspect of living systems; any attempt to define life in the absence of this diachronic perspective will be futile."
Combined with your view that the earth is relatively young, ie not in the billions of years, you can surely see the difficulties in disussing life and rocks with somone who seems content to dismiss much of the past 500 hundred years or so of philosophy, geology & biology in favour of scholastic metaphysics alongside a holy book.

Signing off posts with an example of someone questioning your knowledge..and bragging about it...and just incase we missed it* spelling out how stupid they are......please Lord don't let me end up like that

*which i would have done as I turn off sigs on message boards.

So you think the question of whether or not rocks are alive is legitimate?

Exhibit B, ladies and gentlemen (and C, if you add the person I quoted from the other board). This is what such "thinking" (which is really just a refusal to think) leads to . . . looking at rocks and trying to decide if they are actually alive or not.

As for your comments to me, specifically, pro, there are so many misrepresentations I couldn't even begin. You've really missed the mark terribly in a lot of ways. I've not the time or energy to explain it all to you. No, this is not an attempt to refute what you say. It's not an argument for you to consider. I'm just informing you of something that you can choose to accept or reject. I'm telling you that your assessment, not just of the content of what I've said but the context and even further the relationship between those various ideas you raised, is all factually incorrect. You've done a wonderful job burning down a straw man. I congratulate you for your hard fought victory, just as much as I do those who disprove evolution by pointing to the monkeys that still exist.

Again, to everyone, please, just take note of the fact of where modern atheism is driving people: rocks might be alive! YOU NEVER KNOW!!!11!1!11

Psalm 14:1
Prov 26:4

[Kurieuo]

Again, to everyone, please, just take note of the fact of where modern atheism is driving people: rocks might be alive! YOU NEVER KNOW!!!11!1!11

If you're ever castaway, then you'll realise it's true! Just ask Wilson.

[Proinsias]

Perhaps pictures would help:

Cimabue 1285:


Guo Xi 1072:

One shows clear distinctions between rocks, angels, prophets and the divine. In the other the difference between the trees, rocks & people doesn't matter much. Guo Xi is presenting humanity as a few fleeting burshstrokes, very much part of the environment. Cimabue, alongside most of the cannoical works of Christian art in the European tradition he stands at the root of, present pictures where even a child can see what is dead, what is alive, what is human and what is divine.

[Audie]

Debating with an atheist is like playing chess with a monkey. No matter how good you are, Jac, the monkey will knock over all the pieces, defecate on the board and claim victory.

FL

Lets see now, this is the charming statement of someone who believes that there really-really was a world wide flood.

Regardless, thanks for expressing your true feelings toward me and others who dont share your views. Respond for lurkers as you wish, you are on ig.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Lets see now, this is the charming statement of someone who believes that there really-really was a world wide flood. Regardless, thanks for expressing your true feelings toward me and others who dont share your views. Respond for lurkers as you wish, you are on ig.

I thought you were tougher than that, Chinadoll! I really didn't see you as a delicate pink flower, sorry!

FL

[Yrreg]

Download a copy of Jac's book, Making Divine Simplicity Simple - Rediscovering Who and What God is. You can find the link in the thread entitled Simplicity Book FINISHED in the Resources forum.

It is well worth the read.

FL

I need your very own self-thought out ideas, based on facts and logic.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Here is my concept of God, the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Since the universe exists and it has a beginning and everything we we know to exist has a beginning, then it follows that God as the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning exists.

What are your comments to my take on God, from concept to existence?

The above was your original post. The following is your latest post:

I need your very own self-thought out ideas, based on facts and logic.

Proinsias, RickD and I have suggested you read Jac's Making Divine Simplicity Simple yet you haven't yet done so. Read it, come back and we'll talk...or forever hold your peace.

FL